Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 13 January 2009

Template:Medcabbox

On 7 January 2009, this talk page was linked from Digg, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Discussions related to the introduction/lead are happening at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

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. Israel Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

A news item involving Gaza War (2008–2009) was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 December 2008.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Belén Fernández (12/28/2008). "Hanukkah Games in Gaza". The Palestine Chronicle. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

PLEASE, DON'T ARCHIVE AS ARCHIVING IS AUTOMATICALLY DONE BY A BOT!

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Back to International Law

I can't find the discussion that we previously had about the "International law" section, either in the discussion page or the archives (maybe I just haven't looked far enough back). At any rate, if it is in the archives, let us restart, because we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

The section as it now stands is pretty awful. Let's tackle it issue by issue (NOTE TO NEWLY INVOLVED EDITORS: struck-through text represents issues that--at least for the time being--have been worked out):

1. Length - At this rate, we'll need to start a separate article for this section. That's fine if that's the way people want to go, except that nobody ever reads articles that are that specific.
2. Gaza as occupied territory - This debate deviates severely from the discussion we ought to be having. But, if other editors want to go there, the Israeli position must be represented adequately. The sources used to rebut it fundamentally violate WP:Synthesis, because they don't respond to the Israeli position; instead, the editor must synthesize them to clarify that Gaza is occupied territory in spite of the disengagement. It's also synthesis to say "the UN and other international organizations," when the only other organization quoted is the Human Rights Council. Let's examine the sources used to establish Gaza's position as occupied territory:
   1. An International Court of Justice decision from one year prior to Israeli disengagement (i.e. irrelevant).
   2. The fact that there is an "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs office on Occupied Palestinian Territory." Consider the fact that the argument has to be made in the citation, because it's not actually made in the source. To draw such a conclusion violates WP:Synthesis.
   3. Gunness refers to Israel as an "Occupying Power." That he does, but in an interview, not some sort of official publication. As mentioned above, this also does not touch upon the disengagement, and so is synthesis.
   4. HRC - Again, there's no consideration of the disengagement.
3. Ad-hominem attacks against Falk - I don't see the reason why the whole "Falk is a controversial figure…" part is included. It adds very little to the article, and is quite long.
4. Gary Grant - Again, I think it generally best to avoid quoting interviews in lieu of actual published works. Also, why are we quoting Gary Grant? On what grounds is the value of his legal opinion asserted? If we have to quote him, let's at least cut down on the paragraph, because it can be summarized in one sentence.
5. UN speeches - The snippets from Egypt and Jordan are, again, not actual publications. UN speeches are better than interviews, but still. If these government have published amicus currae briefs, or something like that, it would be better to quote them than a speech--a speech is just a summary of the country's position, and not an actual WP:RS in itself. Even if they were actual publications, I don't see what they add to the article. Everything they say has already been said, and they don't give any reason why Israel violates international law; they simply state that it does. Of notable irrelevance is the Egyptian statement, which pertains to the Israeli blockade of Gaza, not to the conflict (which is, after all, the subject of the article).
6. Specific incidents - Are we all ABSOLUTELY sure that we want to start listing specific incidents. By the middle of next week, the "International law" section will be bursting at the seams with incidents in which Israel and Hamas violated international law. I vote we stick to the bigger picture, because all these incidents fall under its wing. But, if I have failed to persuade you, let's consider some specifics about the UN school incident: Investigation is ongoing, not to mention the fact that it has its own section. Besides, in what legal capacity is the OIC brought into the picture? They don't even elaborate on anything.
7. Petition to the court - This section needs to be seriously cut down; it's way too long. Also, are they arguing on the grounds of international law or Israeli law?
8. Hamas ideology - Why is this in the article? Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters.

Well, this marks the end of my super-mumbo-jumbo-giant-long-edit. For the sake of the sanity of all of us, I respectfully respect that editors number their responses, so that we can all see who is responding to what point. Seeing as how things get archived mighty fast here, let's try to keep the discussion alive (though I'm sure we'll have no problem). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed references 2.1 and 2.2 (numbering scheme follows list above). Maybe I assumed to much, but I figured that WP policy was so clear on the subject, that their removal would not prove too controversial. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks against Falk should be removed. By all means feel free to do so. He has a page for that crap doesn't he? 'Controversial' in wiki I/P articles is code language for unreliable, by the way, and is found as the standard epithet for any wiki page covering a critic of Israel. One could say the same of Dershowitz, that he is 'controversial', and this would be improper, since a link will take anyone to those pages where his status is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you're on board with the discussion, Nishidani. What's your opinion on the other points?

Meantime, I've looked back at the source for the Supreme Court petition (point no. 7 above), and found that there was no discussion there whatsoever of international law. Can anyone find a source that says the petition is founded in international law? If not, I will go ahead and remove it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy, and just glanced through, and haven't had the time to check anything, so I responded on the first point I knew about off-hand. I agree with you also that 'Hamas ideology' has to be excerpted from the article. Hamas has its own page, and its ideology is discussed there. It is totally inappropriate here, and as you quote it, evidently an attempt to prejudice the reader by hitting the 'barbarian' button, aside from its irrelevance to what should be a strict factual accountancy of the conflict. I'll certainly look through the rest, as time allows.Nishidani (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up the talk page a bit and you'll see the 'Alleged violations of international law misrepresentation' section. I put a link to the archives in there. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just saw the section on Hamas's ideology! The source cited is Palestinian Media Watch by no means a neutral source. Leaving this aside, the text in the article misrepresents the source.

The source says, that the Hamas representative said "Accordingly created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life.". The text says that the representative "explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."(emphasis mine) In the source, the Hamas person was using a metaphor; this has been turned into an explanation!

Second, the text says "Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued. The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters." These two lines are lifted verbatim from a report written by Palestinian Media Watch. Now, while PMW may have this opinion about Hamas's motivations, this is an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, PMW, by itself is neither notable nor neutral, so its opinion, especially such a strong one, does not deserve inclusion here.

I'm going to remove this paragraph. The rest of the discussion you initiated is very useful and please continue with that. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

someone beat me to it! Anyway, I completely endorse the removal of this paragraph. Jacob2718 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Hamas stuff and also the Gary Grant stuff. He does not appear to judge by his brief history here, to have any particular competence in international law, and the statements are just generic opinions by an otherwise nondescript barrister. This section should quote opinions only by recognized authorities. Dershowitz by the way is not a recognized authority on international law. I won't touch it. But if he stays, he should be balanced by Franklin Lamb's withering critique of his opinions in this case. No hurry. Ideas? Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I further indented your line. I hope you don't mind.

Yeah, I also think that Dershowitz needs to be removed. Everything he says is already said by Israel in the following paragraph, and of the two sources, he is less reliable.

I'll go ahead and remove him. If I get reverted, then we'll discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned the indent compliment! I've had a first go at cutting back the petition. In any case, this will have to be rewritten as news comes in of the Court's decision. It's sitting today, I believe. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Egypt-Jordanian stuff is sourced, and needn't be a brief. It should of course be brief. The following remark in the text, 'This comes as a surprise since Egypt imposed (the) Gaza Strip blockade in full cooperation with Israel following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip,' is unsourced, and looks like an editorial comment, apart from being poorly written (= 'though Egypt collaborated fully with Israel in imposing a blockade on the Gaza Strip, after Hamas took over its administration'. I happen to agree with it. Unless someone can come up with a source for it, it will have to be removed. I will post a citation needed tag for the moment.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put the 'citation required' flag after 'it comes as a surprise'. Some source has to say both (it was a surprise) and (b) that in making the declaration, Egypt was being hypocritical, since it supports the very blockade it denounces as a violation of international law. Otherwise we haqve WP:SYNTH probs.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Something that needs to be borne in mind is that there is no single, accepted definition of what international law is in relation to any particular issue, due to there being no international government. An ICJ or International Criminal Court decision is pretty clear evidence, but we don't have any in relation to this specific conflict or any of the alleged incidents during it. Therefore all Misplaced Pages can do is to state "Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group X says this, Expert/Commentator/Pressure Group Y says that" and leave the reader to make up his/her own mind. We aren't an arbitrator of "the truth", we simply collate facts and opinions established by others. Cynical (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So all of those doctorates in international law, and the history of rulings, are invalid. You've just downsized a notable constituency of the legal world. For the record, 'international law' since Grotius's time, refers to the law of nations, between nations, and does not require the existence of an international government. One used to learn this in high schools in the old world. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"One used to learn this in High Schools in the old worlds remember WP:Civil concerning "One used to learn this in High Schools in the old world." V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source yet that links the petition (no. 7 above) to international law, so I'm removing it. If it survives revert, I'll put a strikethrough on the above list.

Also, the quality of the Egyptian and Jordanian sources (no. 5 above) was only the smallest part of my complaint against them. They add nothing to the article (and are quite long in so doing). The Egyptian source doesn't even have to do with the conflict. How do people feel about removing them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A small point, as I recall Britian did a Blockage of Germany during WWI and parts of the German population were close to starving to death. However, Britian was not considered an Occupying power. I think they may have also done a Blockage on what became Lebannon. Blockages per se do not create Occupying powers. ITBlair (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cynical. International Law is only relevant to those who follow it. Israel is not a signatory to many "International Laws" that she found inappropriate and did not ratify many of the treaties signed by the European powers. International Law is also a recourse which has repeatedly been used against Israeli interests. ." Also, what might be legal in Israel or Sweden or Nigeria might not apply to other countries. The simple truth is that international law is in flux and has been since the very first agreements, and certain things seem to ALWAYS apply (Laws agaisnt Piracy) and certain ideas of international law seem sometimes to apply and certain other ideas are NEVER applied). Which laws are applied and by what we have politicians for. One should also never forget that lawyers of any stripe are advocates first, and "friends of the court" second V. Joe (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Joe, neither you nor the other editor, Cynical, have the foggiest notion of what you are descanting on. You can opinionize, but nothing you say is relevant to editing in this regard.

Saepe habilis. I have no problem with eliding the Egyptian-Jordanian bits, but others may object. The petition should not be struck out, though you have a point. But many of these questions before the Supreme Court of Israel have to do with Israel's international obligations consequent upon a complex array of treaties, associations with international bodies etc. It is true that, in many cases, Israeli legal scholars have argued that a number of provisions in international law do not apply to acts or laws passed by the state. But that does not mean Israeli law itself is hermetically sealed off from international law and conventions. I therefore advise you to not elide the petition, esp. since it was to be heard today, and we should shortly have some indications of a verdict. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Es, Nishidani, ridiculor. Te amo. If you can find a RS that spells out the connection between the petition and international law, I won't object to its (brief) inclusion. Otherwise, the connection would be synthesis.

As for Egypt and Jordan, I'll wait a little longer to see if there are objection, and if not, I'll take them out. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is simple, I feel that International Law, which is a Trojan Horse when applied to Israel. Essentially, notice the amount of attention paid to Sri Lanka and you can perhaps understand my feelings about International Law. V. Joe (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I note the petition section has been removed without consensus, and despite the fact that Joe and Cynical can't distinguish customary and conventional international law. Petitions to the Supreme Court of Israel that have been decided by that august body through reference to International Law are perhaps not commonplace, but precedents exist. Ther right to do so was estbalished soon after the Six Day War. Nothing I say will change your opinion, so go read Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992. I know you won't, so read at least pp.70ff.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think we're losing focus a bit here. Isn't the section getting a bit long for this article ? Yes, country/person X can say something like "compliance with international law isn't required for the legitimate use of power" as Condie Rice wrote once I recall (...can't remember the exact words) and various bodies will challenge that position and so on and so forth but we're in danger of getting into a swamp here and over complicating matters. Would it not be better to make a big effort to keep this section as simple as possible (in this article) e.g. set out the UNHRC position and provide counter arguments maintaining due weight for the bodies that speak on behalf on the world/regional communities, have some specific examples/details but not too much. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I was bold, and removed the petition section. I figured if it was reverted, we could discuss. Let me make one thing clear: I completely agree with you that Israeli court decisions are often founded in international law. But, absent a RS that specifically says that this particular petition is founded in international law, this section is out of place. If you find such a source, I would not object to including it (but let's make it brief, if we can). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agreed you had a point. Removing it removed the source, and the point, so I had trouble this morning checking it out. But I objected more to the assertion International Law does not matter to the ISC, than to the propriety of your call. I haven't as yet enough Hebrew to read the petition, which was promoted by 9 groups:Gisha, Adalah, Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Bimkom, HaMoked, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Rabbis for Human Rights, Yesh Din, but will search to see if a foreign language version is available and whether, if so, ref. is made therein to international customary law (from what I know, there would be certainly a legal problem for the petitioners, but of course my opinion is irrelevant), CheersNishidani (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, I have seen no objections to removing the snippets from Egypt and Jordan (point no. 5 above). Only Nishidani has made any comment, and he said he's not objected to eliding it. So I'll go ahead and do so. If there are objections, we can go into discussion.

Also, no one has yet answered the question that I wrote in bold, all-caps, large text (see point no. 6 above). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it (or I removed them and forgot). I'm way too young to be getting senile… hmf… Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I haven't been able to find the petition. If you can post a link to the Hebrew version, I could read it and tell you if there's mention of international law in it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gisha petition. They only have a summary on their page. Gisha.org. Thanks for the courtesy of offering to check it,Saepe Fidelis . I don't expect an explicit claim, so won't be surprised if the verdict is no. Keep me tuned.Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specific incidents "Sub-Section Name" distorts what needed in this section By big bold I assume you mean your reference to specific incidents sub-section? Originally we were just listing those who also called Israel's actions violations of international law. Then someone made it an "incidents" section and then someone said let's delete the incidents. It should NOT be an incident section, but a list of important parties world wide calling Israel's actions violations of international law war crimes. When it's save for me to revert it i'll do so and shorten the Amnesty international section which does start to read like an incident report. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Carol, please read the discussion above about why individual country's opinions on the legality of Israel's actions have been removed.

Nishidani, I've started to make my way through the document. It's 26 pages long, so I'll try to give you an answer soon, but don't hold your breath. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold my breath? Me? With the emphysema I've got after smoking 3 cartons of cigarettes in the past week? No hurry, but I may not be around to read it, at this rate of pulmonary bombing.:)Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I hope your lungs get better.

The petition makes many references to international law, beginning on page 18. I am currently working on too many things to reword the section so that it includes this information. If someone else could do that, that would be wonderful. If not, I'll do it when I get around to it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting a response on number 6. Fundamentally, the issue is that if we go into individual cases of alleged violation on the Israeli side, then we must do the same for Palestinian militants. Any input from other editors on whether they would rather do both or neither? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Looks like someone created the section. I'll take that as "both." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No feedback probably because no one is reading your request. I suggest you move the unaswered queries down, reopen the case in short. As to the query, my only suggestion is that the 'incidents' of violations of international law be those that are thus classified by our sources, that mentions be brief. At some point this article will be subject to severe slimming. All that interests me is that key points be enumerated and referenced in notes to reliable sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is Dershowitz back in the article? I'll go ahead and remove him, and hopefully someone will be willing to discuss on this page, rather than just reverting.

Additionally, I was thinking that the Falk statement in the "By Palestinian militants" section should probably be removed. There are four things that trouble me about it: (1) Falk wrote it mostly as a diplomatic nicety, and it doesn't follow the spirit of his statement, (2) due to this, it is paired with an (awkward) explanation of Israel's legal position, which doesn't fit in the section, (3) as Special Rapporteur, his opinion about Palestinian violations of IL aren't relevant (his job is only to report Israeli violations of HR), and (4) we already have this viewpoint represented by the BBC, Israel and other sources. Speaking of which, who removed the Human Rights Council comment on the illegality of Hamas rockets and why? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The technique being employed is to snow eyes or throw sand in them, by a blizzard of provocative edits too fast for anyone to see what's going on everywhere. At this point, the page should be reverted to what it was three days ago, and administrative oversight exercised to see that, apart from statistics, no major edits or deletes are done until we obtain some consensus. People who edit without arguing their case are in bad faith, from wherever they hail (to pick up my original metaphor). As to Falk, my view is that Falk and the Wiener & Co remarks,balance out (or did) fairly well, and were reasonably authoritative, until disturbances started chocking the text with blog sources, and uninformed comment by people who may be lawyers but are not competent in the area. I think we should reserve the section for international lawyers. Sure the language can be trimmed. But balance is of the essence. I say that fully aware that a crew of blowhards are going to do whatever they feel like irrespective of attempts here to edit collaboratively.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

British Foreign Secretary says Gaza abuse allegations by both sides must be properly investigated: . Notable and should be added. Fig (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Moved to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

References

Operation Cast Lead (MILHIST geek stuff)

I am trying to gather stuff forma military history perspective on Operation Cast Lead, for example, "orders of battle", units involved, notable commanders, hardware etc. I feel this information is relevant but needs to be gathered and shaped first. Please drop anything here: User:Cerejota/OpCastLead. Thanks!

Talk page references

Independent opinion on Alleged violations of international law by the Israel Defense Forces

I'd like to request to restore legal opinion by Gary Grant published on Al Jazeera English as a response to Gaza raids toll. It references independent opinion by legal professional. The way it was published shows that it was not influenced by political reasons like other opinions of number of the World leaders which expressed view that Israel actions are an Act of Self Defence. Currently this section gives impression that such opinion is expressed only by Israeli sources and "in response".

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what the consensus is. It was discussed. The provisory consensus was he did not match up to wiki criteria of notability. I checked Gary Grant, who graduated in 1994 as a barrister, is not on record as dealing with international law, has no academic credentials in that area as a specialist or authority, who deals in civil and criminal law cases in England. It appears that AlJazeera asked a Jewish member of the bar in England for his opinion. The opinion he gave was not framed in terms of international law, did not cite technicalities, but simplyt expressed his private view. There are thousands of lawyers throughout the world who could be asked the same question, and we could then stack the subsection with their views. None of those views holds nauthority or interest unless they are expressed by people who have a public record for authoritative knowledge about what they are speaking of.

In these things we normally choose the best specialists, to avoid opinionizing by non-professionals being cited, something which lends itself to POV stacking.Nishidani (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware Gary Grant was jewish, it changes everything! How do you know, could you point to the direction of the source of this information? Al Jazeera English presents him as "Gary Grant, international law expert" here and used his services in the past about other international conflicts here . So the fact is that Gary Grant is expert enough and notable for Al Jazeera English. I'm pretty sure that Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs are also jewish !!! I suspect they are even Israelis :)

I think that Gary Grant opinion should be referenced, I was not convinced by your reasoning. At least could we reflect some other international opinion that Israel actions are Act of Self Defence, for instance current US president probably is notable enough and hopefully not jewish. Bush is not the only world leader who thinks so. Though I'd prefer it to be professional opinion and not political one, since we talk here about law and not about politics. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary Grant International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists

AlJazeera just asked a Jewish barrister in London his opinion. It doesn't matter to me whether he's Jewish. It matters to me that he is not competent, as Falk and the other two are. Look at his legal work. There is nothing there to do with international law. I don't have to convince you. But you do have to create a new consensus if you wish to plunk it in, and if you do, you will open that page to a large number of edits interviewing nondescript Arab, American, Uzbeki lawyers saying they think it violates international law. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duh, half the anti-IDF statements were removed cause of people arguing that it was WP:UNDUE to include all of the that. NOW, if people gonna return this un-notable Gary Grat opinion, I'm going to return all the other statements deleted from a lot of other countries officials and security councils meetings. NO. People deleted a lot of anti-IDF yesterday cause of UNDUE, so No more pro-IDF will be added unless the old anti-IDF will be returned. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, let us include Gary Grant! And maybe even George Waterboard Bush! NonZionist (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No way this should be included. Gary Grant's only achievement in life is having talked to al-jazeera --vvarkey (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-Zionist: However much you dislike him, GWB is the current President of the United States and as such, his opinion is highly relevant to any major international event since for the next 8 days his opinion represents the opinion of the United States government. Might I however suggest that you change your name to "predictable leftist?" V. Joe (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera English managed to confuse me about professional background and notability of Gary Grant. You made a great research, he is only a BA and jewish. I still think that quoting only Israelis and "in response" looks as problematic POV. How do things established to be consensus, is there a wikipedia procedure describing it? Is Bush in consensus? It should be noted in this section that it is widely excepted international position that Israels actions are an Act of Self Defence against Hamas continuous actions described as war crimes also by people as competent as Falk and declared goal of destroying Israel and Jews living in Israel. Is there agreement about this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Government opinions are political opinions reflecting national interests, as any one party perceives them. Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast, and the public polled to register the effect. International law is an area where professionals debate intricate issues. If we wish to be informed about it, we do not ask politicians, or newspaper editorialists, or barristers in London, or Arabs or Jews or whoever. We consult men with a distinguished record. The three gentlemen we have already are all Jewish, and disagree on this question, as the proverb tells us to expect. We cite them because of their eminence as professionals in this area of law. We do not challenge them for their ethnic background, which is irrelevant.

If there is a difficult issue you feel strongly about and want to press into the page, then make a suggestion on the edit you wish to do, and wait for other editors to comment. When several agree on it, or come to a compromise, this is regarded as a consensus, and means that, when you edit that compromise in, or consensual verdict on the text, in, it can't be erased haphazardly, since it is the result of collaborative work and agreement, unlike most edits.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Public opinion is whatever muck sticks in the mind for more than five minutes after news had been broadcast,"...classic. Thanks for that one, most excellent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, pal, if you collect'em, I think you'd prefer, as I do, Nietzsche's dictum: 'Public opinion is the absent of private opinions' or something along those lines. I think it's in 'Human, All to Human', but read it four decades ago, and can't quite vouch for the phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

sickest man (round here that is compliment) Nableezy (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian crisis

Could the 'Humanitarian crisis' be forked off into its own page? There's so much information that could go there that it would clog up this main page if we flesh the issue out in detail. 129.120.4.1 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new page at Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 and copied everything from this section to it. I wasn't sure what to leave behind in summary on the main page. Please discuss the move here; it may be that people think it should be moved back; but I decided to take action as the article was getting too long. I think it is an important section so hopefully this arrangement will be satisfactory. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No please, this is a core part of the war and where most of the media focus has been on. WP:NOTPAPER. The situation is clearly emphasized by a lot of media and reports that the small paragraph you put instead of it give the issue no fair. There have been other long articles on @ikipedia by the way. Examples: the Holocaust and Pink Floyd. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest instead that "the Humanitarian aid deliveries" section be abridged cause this micro-detailed list of aid is not very usable to Misplaced Pages since even the UN and others said that it was a "tickle of aid" and a "pitiful gesture" --Darwish07 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Darwish07. There is far too much one-off or hot-heaqded editing without consensus in here, making keeping track of what's worth conserving and what needs weeding out, extremely arduous. Editors who have worked hard should collaborate in making sure these constant one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information be reverted, until those doing it come to heel, register in here and talk with everyone else about why they are editing in one way or another.Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough if everyone wants it back, I have no strong opinion on the matter. In my defence, this wasn't a "one time edits by blow-ins snipping out information". All the info was retained on the new page. Furthermore, a number of people have called for something like this to be done for about a week, and I hadn't seen anyone speak out against it. It was actually a considered move. But its fine if people don't agree, as I said above - where I also pointed out that I do consider this an extremely important issue.

I understand. The problem is that we tried hard to make the paragraphs on humanitarian crisis section as abridged as possible. Any size smaller than that will omit critical facts from the situation, making the paragraph a not-complete and an unfair encyclopedic reporting case. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, do you think we should link at all to the new article(Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009), or just delete it?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Just delete it to avoid redundancy. If some one want to add a lot of extra not-mentioned facts, he'll create the page again anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas fires missiles during "humanitarian corridor"

During the "humanitarian corridor", Hamas kept on shooting rockets on Israeli towns. Here is the most recent link from YNet. I think it's worthy to mention it. If so, it should also be updated in the Gaza Strip Humanitarian Crisis, January 2009 article. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Hamas continued to fire during the three hour daily truce or from a Humanitarian corridor? Superpie (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, according to what I know, they keep firing missiles during the 3 hour "Humanitarian Corridor" cease fire. I saw it in several articles other than the one I linked to. I know that there have been several exchanges of fire between Hamas and IDF, but as much as reports go, IDF didn't initiate any attack during these 3 hours. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Today Hamas broke the truce and fired several rockets. One hit a kindergarten in Ashdod. Rabend (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Was this truce ever accepted by Hamas? Not to argue the point that they did fire the rockets, but if you want to say the broke the truce you should be able to say they accepted it. I think it can go in the article, but something along the lines of 'Hamas fired rockets during the 3 hour humanitarian corridor (or whatever sounds better) that the IDF commited to not engage in hostilities.' That good? Nableezy (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

True, the truce was never accepted by Hamas, as far as I can tell. I'll update the article. Rabend (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what? The ref in the article does state that Hamas agreed not to fire during corridor times. So I think that does constitue a 'truce'. Although maybe 'truce' should be replaced with 'corridor', since it is not an actual truce, and 'corridor' is the term used both officially and in the media. What do you say? Rabend (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant find the where it is in the article. Could you link the source here? I cant find much with google news. But if a reliable source says they accepted or agreed to not engage then I think that can go in. Nableezy (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Found it, i think we can safely say that they broke the truce, and I think the wording is good. Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowowowowow! The only source I have seen listing Hamas as agreeing to a truce is the first one, which states it will comply with the first three hours. It doesnt say anything after that. I may have missed something but please advise, its deeply biased to describe Hamas having broken a truce they never agreed to. Superpie (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"A three-hour truce took place on 9 January as well. Palestinian militants violated the truce, firing three Grad rockets at Ashdod, and several mortar shells at the terminal of the Kerem Shalom border crossing, as it was being used to transfer supplies into Gaza. No casualties were reported.

Hamas violated the humanitarian truce on 11 January, as several rockets hit Israeli towns, including one rocket exploding in a kindergarten in Ashdod, and again on 12 January, when it fired rockets at four cities, hitting two homes, and striking close to a high school."

Hamas is not breaking a truce, its continuing to fire through an Israeli ceasefire. The claims above are biased and unsubstantiated, neither make any mention of agreement between the two sides, only that the Israeli's have ceased firing. I am going to change the wording to reflect this if there is agreement? Superpie (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas uses ambulances to transport terrorists and weapons

There are a lot of video sites showing Hamas using ambulances for military purposes, thereby breaking the International humanitarian law. IDF has also noted that. Can you find notable sites reporting this? Rabend (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sure you remember this from the archived discussion:

IDF posing as Hamas militants

• Gaza residents: IDF troops posing as Hamas men Where should such info go? Tiamut 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Next to the one describing Hamas militants disguised as IDF soldiers which would be right next to the report on Hamas militants disguised as doctors and nurses. In sum, I think neither should be in.--Omrim (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think is called "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza rumor mongering", its all in the fog of war :D.--Cerejota (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting, although with a clear statement that it is largely unsubstantiated. The false accusations that both sides make against the other are just as important to note as the truthful ones. Both influence the conflict and the people in them. Perhaps a new header? Superpie (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is largely unsubstantiated, then it doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. We should not become a news dump. Rabend (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What's weird

Is that the article Gaza residents: IDF troops posing as Hamas men has now been replaced in Haaretz by one on Obama's views on the War. It's clear it's the same place where the old article was though, because in the comments section, readers are responding to the original Amira Hass article first. Besides which the original article has been reprinted on other sites. Tiamut 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Regarding this edit. Unfortunately wikipedia doesn't care about children. You can see that for yourself on articles like ejaculation and anus (don't go the article if you're offended by nudity!). Also read WP:CENSOR in that regard.

May I ask you to undo your edit in that case? VR _talk 22:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary" also isn't a reason to remove images.VR _talk 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the image was too large and badly misplaced. Please don't start personal attacks and let's just act like cordial human beings. It's bad enough that some people are killing each other.--23prootie (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The image is also unsourced and doesn't have a copyright. And the uniforms, are these really civilians?--23prootie (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which image you're discussing specifically, but in general, I think that images here should be reasonable such that they would not be used as a tool to affect the naive reader's judgement, particularly in such a sensitive article. Rabend (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of images do you prefer? I don't think you will find an image of Palestinian children handing out flower bouquets to Israeli soldiers. We are not going to sugarcoat what the Israelis have done and if the truth affects "the naive reader's judgement" then so be it. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer ones that are not of dead Palestinian kids that were alive until a Hamas terrorist forced them to be his human shield. These are not my favorites. Rabend (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the Palestinian kids that were killed at that UN school? Oh wait there were no Hamas militants there, but Israelis slaughtered those kids anyway. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Rabend (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The scary unsourced one, that's really creepy.--23prootie (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we could not find a more innocent/rosier looking image of the slaughter. If you can find one, please let us know. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Scary" and "creepy" are arguments to be thrown out the window.

As for sourcing, what source are you exactly looking for. Please note that images enjoy certain exceptions to the policy of souring and original research. See WP:OI in that regard.VR _talk 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The photo was removed again, inspite of this discussion. I've replaced. --vvarkey (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And again. Still no discussion upon removal. cojoco (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also being talked about down in #Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture Nableezy (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a different image. I translated the Arabic caption on the original image using http://translation.babylon.com/Arabic, it it came up with

"The Gaza massacre December 2008 dozens of Palestinian policemen dead after the bombing of all Palestinian security headquarters in the Gaza Strip"

So I think it would be safe to say that they're policemen cojoco (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, there are like 4 image discussions going on, got mixed up. (think it is time i weaned myself off my wiki-crack) Nableezy (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it again. 23prootie removed it with the comment "Week of air strikes: better if the image is about women or children, overcrowding hospitals or the UN being target toget more symphathy votes, alsowhy aren't Israeli victims shown?" cojoco (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it again for a third time, still with no discussion from 23prootie. This time it was removed on Copyright grounds, but it is a legitimate Misplaced Pages image on the Arabic wiki with a licence that needs translation. I can see no reason to remove the image.

Proposed rules from discussion below:

1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).--23prootie (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pro-Israeli photo added with silly caption added by user:Mbz1

"Side by side and the world apart. While the demonstrators on the left hold signs of peace, demonstrators on the right hold signs of hate" One step closer as we move towards Israeli propaganda --68.123.141.153 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Such a caption is definitely inappropriate. Unless the image is edited to remove or change this description, it should be taken out of the article and possibly deleted completely. I think the image would be fine, if the caption was changed to something more neutral, or if there was no text at all (since the file page already has a description as is). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Already changed it. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the description associated with the file's page has been edited, the image itself includes a caption that needs to be cropped (since it's not text that can be edited). ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad you brought this issue to the talk page and lodged another complaint about how the article is becoming increasingly pro-X. It's not like there was anything you could have done about it, like, I dunno, cropping the image. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that image was to make that point. It's just confusing otherwise. I'm putting up some more tomorrow for people to choose from. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh I cannot the crop the image because um the article is locked. An um I can not change and upload the image because it is not mine. And I have a problem with the image itself, as it clearly put together to compare the protesters. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: it's not like you could have signed up for an account, downloaded the current image, and uploaded the edited image. Anyone with an account on Commons can upload images, and anyone can overwrite someone else's image. -- tariqabjotu 05:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction, I would still have to wait 10 days so that my account can be autoconfirmed and even had I opened an account 3 days ago, I would still be limited to voicing my suggestions in the talk page where I still have to deal with annoying sarcastic remarks.--68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said, anyone with an account on Wikimedia Commons can upload images. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not hearing me out. I am not advocating the cropping of the caption. I am suggesting that the picture be removed in its entirety! I don't have the capabilities to remove and add another picture on this locked article and that is why I "lodged another complaint" on the talk page. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this silly picture. It's clearly trying to promote a point. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn that. As if the IDF is trying to promote piece by killing and injuring thousands of people mostly women and children. Cute trick Mbz. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, please stop SOAPing. These statements are just your personal opinions and are irrelevant, at best. Rabend (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So you don't like to see yourself in a mirror,User:Darwish07?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the last version of the image was OK, and there's nothing wrong with including it in the article, since the inappropriate caption was removed. Plus, even the thumbnail quality was improved. ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if the protests are related, and if they are protestting in favor of the attack to bring Shalit back I would think it is, it can stay in the article, if it is not related, if this was from a demonstration from before the strikes, it should be removed. Im sure there are pictures of pro-israel demonstrations, if this is one of them then I think it would be fine. Nableezy (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The silly caption has been sneaked back in. I dunno how to revert images, can someone take a look? if the creator of the image objects to it being modified, let's delete it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to revert to the other version of the file within Wikimedia Commons, but was unable to do so. I was probably not doing it the right way. (I've never dealt with that domain before.) So, I agree with Vvarkey - either the caption needs to be removed anew, or the image should be taken out of this article completely. I personally think the last version was OK, because it didn't have any captions within the image itself (so wasn't biased either way), and was actually of better size and outlay than the original. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1, is there any reason why you didn't like the altered version of the image? The only major difference was that the caption was removed, which everyone who has voiced their opinion so far has agreed was inappropriate. Other than that, the images were separated, so that the thumbnails would fit better on the page. Lastly, the size of the image was reduced, because the original file was far too large and very difficult to load in its entirety. Please explain why you have reverted to the original version, considering the criticism voiced on this Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of my image with no caption at all.After all the image speaks for itself and leaves no doubt who wants two state solution and peace and who wants the destruction of Israel and war. I hope this is going to be satisfactary.Here's a new caption:"Two demonstrations regarding the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict.The images were taken on the same day, at the same time. The demonstrations were located across the street from each other". The image is not pro Israeli, the image is pro Peace, pro friendship and against the war and against the hate.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the pro-israeli signs are an expression of arrogance and self-conceited attitude. "Israeli wants peace (but only for the Israelis so we give you the green light to slaughter the Palestinians)". "Israel wishes you a terror-free day (to the israelis only, we support Israelis terrorizing the Palestinians by slaughtering them with all the weaponry they have.)" Not one of those people holding those signs are against the Israeli assault on the Gazans where they are massacring dozens of people each day. Maybe you want to stick that as a caption on the photo. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They are against the war. My heart hurts for every killed child, no mater what religion and what nationality a child is. The war was started by hamas that fires rockets to Israel while hiding behind Human shield made out of their own women and children. Hamas kills their own kids. I'm sure that as soon as rockets from Gaza to Israel stop flying there would be peace! May I please ask you to use your common sense. As you probably know Isreal withdrew from Gaza few years ago. Why in the world they would risk the lifes of their soldiers to go back? No, Israelis want peace and friendship with Palestinians and it is what my image shows.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the point where you need to step back and to take a good look at your self. The pro-Palestinian protesters are protesting the wanton killing of a helpless people who are destitute and crowded in refuge camps, while the people supporting Israel could give a damn about the lives loss on the Palestinian side just as long as Israelis are safe, as one Israeli here said the Palestinian civilians "were sacrificed for the greater good." The pictures you posted are open for interpretation, and it can certainly go against your point. So keep them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But you did not answer my questions. Why after leaving Gaza Israel went back? Who benifits from this war, how and why? Do you hold hamas responsible in any way at all, or in your opinion only Israel is at fault? I'm telling you that I would sacrifice my own life for the life of a child no matter what nationality and what religion the child is. Do you? I want peace. Do you? I want two states solution. Do you? You're saying Israelis want peace for themselves, but are you agree that peace in Israel could only come together with the peace in Gaza? Please do answer my questions.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was supposed to be about how you were trying to prove a point with the pictures, and that point backfiring. But to answer your questions, I do think that Hamas is partly responsible for putting the Gazans in danger by attacking the Israelis, the same way a person who attacks a king knowing fully well that the king will have him executed, his family fed to a den of lions, and his whole town burned down. I don't pretend to know what is going on between Hamas and the Israelis, and what initiated the Hamas rocket attacks. What I do know is that Israelis are not fooling anyone, this is a full-blown assault using as much military technology (why white phosphorus too?) on a helpless people. What's worse is that these people are poor and have suffered a lot, have no organized military and defense, and no one to intervene on their side because everyone is afraid of the Israelis. What's even more frustrating is that some people think this assault is for the greater good. If you think Israelis wanted to achieve peace with this slaughter, they were mistaken or you must not know what is true. How is this going to bring peace? What's going to stop the child, who witnessed his whole family brutally slaughtered by Israeli shelling in this assault, from joining the only organization that dare go against the military might of the Israelis? This is strengthening the case for Hamas. I am guessing Hamas, today, consist of these exact people.

Also in lesser violent times, when Israelis are claiming to push for peace, Israelis were/are building settlements on Palestinian land. David Gregory, who is Jewish and pro-Israeli, said that from 2000, settlement activity had increased the population of Israelis by 45 percent. How am I or others supposed to believe that Israeli believe in peace and a two-state solution when they are eating up the land and doing away with its inhabitants? Yes, I wish there was peace and a two-state solution is needed because it is better than what is now. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The new image works well, and I think it's of a more manageable size (right?). I'd still make it vertical if possible, so the the resolution of the thumbnail and its placement would be better within the article, but that's not necessary. At this point, I think the image should stay, because it depicts both kinds of protests/demonstrations going on around the world regarding the current conflict. ~ Homologeo (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider this image to be mine any more, so if you want it vertical, please revert to the second version from the bottom. Please remember that it takes time to see the result of the reversion, maybe an hour or more.BTW I do not care, if the image stays in the article or it is removed.I'm simply tired. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

More subpages/move material since size expanding

1. That huge aid table should be its own list or part of Humanitarian aid for Gaza? Article has slowed down terribly since put in. Doing minor clean ups and can't even clean up my mistakes quickly it takes so long to load!
2. Incidents: there are/ will be eventually so many that needs own page anyway
3. Casualties as well, unless put together with incidents. CarolMooreDC (talk)

I agree with your points 100%.VR _talk 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of the Protest over Gilad Shalit's Capture

This image has been removed a number of times (twice by me) because its subject is not directly related to the article. Although Gilad Shalit is a soldier captured and held by Hamas, this incident started a very long time ago and has been continuing since. There is a separate article covering this man's capture, and this is an issue involved in the broader topic of Israel-Gaza relations. However, the image does not belong in this article, seeing as there is no direct link to the current conflict. Furthermore, although the way Hamas is handling the capture may, in fact, be a violation of international law, the image should not be included in the section on violations of international law within this article, because only violations related to the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict belong there. For these reasons, I believe the image should be removed. I'm not going to do so myself right now, because the deletion has been reverted before by Mbz1. I would like to get some consensus among editors on the issue, and am interested in hearing Mbz1's reasoning for returning the image. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is relevant to this article. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, there have been recent demonstrations in Israel in support of Gilad Shalit, so those can go in the "Reactions" sub-article. --Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also deleted the picture and someone returned it back. This one need to be reported for clearly violating the 3 edits rule. I'm no longer permissive with people after all this shitty arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's irrelvant and politically motivated. But the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Misplaced Pages is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This image on the "Gilad Shalit" protest has returned. I'm going to remove it again. In fact, I left a message regarding this on User:Mbz1's talk page more than 12 hours ago here. In addition, there was discussion regarding this image yesterday with Jandrews. Apart from the question of relevance, User:Mbz1 has not provided any mainstream media sources that report on this protest. when was it held? Why is it notable? Despite the fact that these images have been reverted several times, User:Mbz1 simply claims that "If they are removed, I'll put them back". In my opinion this is inappropriate. Jacob2718 (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This "conflict", if you break it down, is a slaughtering of people and a destruction of their homes and buildings. Almost 99 percent of the slaughter is done by the Israelis, and some of you don't want show it. That's highly POV, the suppression of the truth. People in the future who want to know about this "conflict" will have to look to other sources to know what happened. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not by Israelies, by hamas.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding no one. The repeating of a lie isn't going to make it the truth. 99 percent of the slaughtering was done by the Israelis so far.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it doesn't belong here.

i had made a comment as to its inclusion as a "pro-israeli" protest giving undue weight considering that anti-war protests outnumbered them so greatly. upon doing more research i also believe that this photo was taken at an anti-war protest in tel aviv organized by gush shalom with a smaller number of pro-government israelis also present. if that is true, not only is the photo of shalit not relevant, the shot of protesters doesn't accurately depict the main participants in the demonstrations.

as a side note, "pro-israeli" doesn't accurately describe those who agree with the israeli government's decision to invade gaza. perhaps "pro-war" is too harsh, but it needs to be known that there are many in israel who oppose the policies of olmert, barak, and livni. i feel that i am both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian, in that i support those citizens of the countries that oppose the violent methods their government uses in this conflict. likewise it wasn't anti-american to oppose the iraq war, simply anti-war. Untwirl (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense! It is entirely relevant. The fact that there is another article on him is completely irrelevant. Just as there is a photograph of Muhammad al-Durrah on that page as well as on the Second Intifada page. I seriously question how relevancy is being established here on the basis of POV. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

that is my point. al durrah was killed on the 3rd day of the second intifada, during the scope of that article. shalit waas captured 2 years ago and moreover hasn't been listed as a reason for this attack. you can say its pov, but i think its relevance is in question due to the limited scope of this article. Untwirl (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Nature of an Image

(Discussion of whether or not graphic imagery should be allowed within the article.) ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"... the grotesque pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly put back up. Misplaced Pages is not a snuf site. WanderSage (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)"

Misplaced Pages does not censor (as regards the snuff site comment), this was discussed above. Nableezy (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but there's a matter of taste. Pictures of the body parts of Israeli infants strewn across a Tel Aviv street are not posted in the Second Intifada article, nor should they. WanderSage (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What photo of children are you referring to? That is a picture of slaughtered grown men, unarmed men. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a distasteful subject, visual representations of it will likely be distasteful. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

To what purpose does it serve but to disgust? Anyone with any trace of humanity is going to be revolted by pictures of blown apart people, regardless of whether they are Nazis or schoolchildren. In this sense, it is POV as it appeals to raw emotionalism , while the purpose of this article is to describe and give context to the conflict in neutral detail. WanderSage (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be replaced. Rabend (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Im not necessarily saying that it needs to stay, but the argument that it should go because it will 'revolt' some i think shouldnt be accepted. That a distasteful image is used in a article on about a military conflict in a densely populated area shouldnt be surprising. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the reader should form his opinions based on rational facts, and not highly-emotional imagery. Rabend (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aah, so you're claiming that this picture isn't a rational fact, while the above picture of a group of Kassam rockets is one. Right!?? I call this information censoring, not rationality. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a contest for which side is the cruelest, so stop trying to "win" all the time. I don't see a reason to post bloody images of qassam victims, since I don't try to win the world's sympathy thru sheer horror. The same goes to victims on the Palestinian side. These cheap tricks are degrading this site. Rabend (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I'm just angry from some earlier discussions, so sorry. The fact is that even if there's a picture about Qassam's danger to house, we'll put it. It's not who win and who lose, it's that many in this world consider this a massacre, so the image is expected to be cruel and disgusting. Just as the other massacre images below. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish07, no problem. We are a little edgy over this war. Still, the fact that many consider this a "massacre", does not make it one. As you know, qassams/grads do not cause only property damage. They also kill. But I don't approve of posting a picture of a woman who was hit head-on with a rocket, her body parts all over the place. This doesn't help the neutrality/objectivity of this article, but rather mainly serves to shock the reader. The reader should be shocked by understanding the entire conflict, context and history included, and not by out-of-context horrors. Rabend (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually one of the less graphic photos depicting the carnage. There are photos of dead Gazan with dangling or missing body parts, you can't even out make out their faces. Being highly sensitive and squeamish myself, I would not have the brought up the pictures if the bodies were not intact. Articles discussing massacres/genocides/assaults wherever you call it, do have photos of the carnage, this is not the first and not the only. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The BobaFett85 captioned the picture with "...Hamas policemen..." where is he drawing this detail from? From his you know what. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely the fact that all the dead are in matching uniforms and wearing utility belts. WanderSage (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I translated the Arabic caption of the original image source, which also says "policement, and added the translation to the image. So I think it's safe to say they're policemen. cojoco (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can remember very well that those was the death of IDF attacking the Gaza police station. I'm not the one who put the "Hamas Policemen" claim, but I'll try to search for references that prove this claim. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've re-censored that image, but it is still available for the sic people who wants to view it. Ek!--23prootie (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While wikipedia does not censor, it also does not assume the role of a tabloid or a porn site where people can put anything anywhere they like. That photo doesn't even have a correct copyright tag. Its liscensing below:

The editor who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. Unless it is demonstrated that its creators have released it under a free license, it is likely to be deleted soon. To the uploader: if you want this image to be kept, you must at least provide a link to the source, so a more experienced editor can help determine its status. Please read the image use policy before making any more uploads.

This image does not have information on its copyright status, but its uploader has requested assistance in determining its copyright status. Unless it is demonstrated that this image is under an admissible free license, it will be deleted soon. To the uploader: please provide at least a precise source (e.g. a link to the website you found the image on). A more experienced editor will then be able to help determine what its copyright status is. Without a source, it is likely to be deemed a copyright violation and deleted immediately. Please read the image use policy before making any further uploads, or ask for advice at the copyright questions noticeboard. This tag may be removed once a correct and truthful copyright tag and a source has been added.image with no license as of 2009-01-10 (CSD F4) Administrators: delete this file

--23prootie (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How old are you?--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?--23prootie (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a fact, do not censor it. Many in this world call the operation a massacre (not just Arabs). If not sure, go and google it. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is NOT censored. This can be found at WP:CENSOR. Such debates have taken place in the past:
  • Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where extremely controversial cartoons were a subject of debate (here). In the end it was decided that the cartoons will be displayed in their full glory.
  • Another related controversy is recorded at Talk:Muhammad/images. Once again it was decided, that no matter whose faith was offended, the images would remain, and won't be hidden.
  • Hiding images. Anyone who finds the image distasteful can configure his browser to not display the image.VR _talk 09:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a war, not a birthday party. It is ludicrous to try to hide this image. --vvarkey (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Without the intention of drawing parallels between the current events and the holocaust or of labelling these events as genocidal I would like to draw attention to the numerous, extremely grotesque images on the wiki page for the WWII Nazi led Holocaust. The first two on the are pictures I find infinitely more disturbing than the currently discussed pictures and the last one I find to be quite similar to the police picture aside from being shot in black and white.

These pictures reflect the gruesome reality of the events during the war. In fact this imagery is closely associated and complements nearly all textual retellings of the WWII holocaust. The exclusion of such imagery in an article of the Holocaust would almost certainly draw the ire of many individuals across a diverse ideological spectrum. The extreme suffering of holocaust victims is a central facet of the Holocaust and its graphical depiction makes that clear. Likewise, the killing of Palestinians that has resulted in a large proportion of civilian deaths (specifically women and children) (whether by the necessity of fighting asymmetrical warfare in Gaza, as Israel would argue, or relative disregard as many others would argue) is a central facet of this conflict.

There is nothing less real about the children dying in Gaza than the children being starved in the Holocaust. We include those pictures, because without them the shear enormity of suffering during the holocaust is nearly incomprehensible; text can hardly do it justice on its own. Likewise, the fact that several hundred Palestinians have been killed, often en masse, is a difficult concept to grasp and deserves graphical support of some sort. If you want to argue "taste" you ought to go to the Holocaust page and ask for the intensely disturbing images I cited to be removed. Thrylos000 (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only important Sir when the Jewish community is suffering, so we can put around FIFTEEN ugly pictures of the holocaust victims. But when it comes to ONE picture of Palestinians killed, we say "EMOTIONAL", "PROPAGANDA", "The CNN STRATEGY", "eik", and "how can my cute little baby/eyes see this picture". I'm sick of bullshit arguments. This is bullshit, not logical debating, plain bullshit. This is the same bullshit as several points made in previous debates like that the UNRWA and Amnesty International is "anti israel" or BBC Arabic is not qualified as a source, or we should not say that the Arabs term the conflict as a massacre because "it's off the limit". Really, this is just clear nonsense. It's the same bullshit argumenting method people like Alan Dershowitz's use when he's debating with Norman Finkelstein. ENOUGH is ENOUGH. This is not about systematic bias, it is about blind bias. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, those images from the Holcaust are in the public domain as well, also you cannot seriously compare the current crises in Gaza to the Shoah. If this is Genocide, it is the most inept genocide in history. Simply put, there are more Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank then they were when Israel was founded. Hell, there are more Israeli ARABs in Israel then there were Arabs in all of Palestine in 1946. Also, unless you believe in the Nazi ideas of the Jews, Jewish Germans and Jewish Poles did not blow up buses in Potsdam, Vienna or Kiel, Germany was not surrounded by Jewish neighbors who sought to annihilate her (all Nazi complaints that France and the Soviet Union were dominated by Jews belong in Mein Kampf and not reality). The situations are not comparable, and if Israel was as aggressive as the Reich, they could've occupied and not given up Syria and Jordan by now, having crushed them in several wars. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this issue becoming yet another controversy ? I really struggle to understand why on Earth anyone could seriously object to images on the basis of their graphic nature. Reality isn't propaganda. If we can get good images of the results of the actions of preferably both sides in this conflict we should probably consider ourselves honoured. And bear in mind that some of the external links are of a very graphic nature. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSED. I am opposed to the use of graphic images in regards to this conflict. The first reason is that the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime. The second reason is that these images are very rarely copyrighted, and the final reason is that they are both inflammatory and it is impossible to know which images are genuine from an ongoing conflict. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

agree with Valentine Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with V. Joe as well. Rabend (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

V. Joe, regarding "the photography of the dead is a considered a war crime", can you supply a source to confirm that. I've not heard that before. I assume it's more complicated than that since there are photos of dead people in many articles in wikipedia as others have demonstrated. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That claim is untrue, the photography of POW by their captors is a war crime, photography of the dead by journalists is most certainly not. And if there was a photograph of Israeli civilian dead I am near certain it would be included. Some of the people voicing these concerns are objecting to this because it makes 'their side' look bad, for that there isnt much a response, others are rejecting it because it is gory or otherwise objectionable, prior wiki decisions have determined that this is not a valid reason for not including images. If there is a copyright problem, that should end all debate until a free-use image is found, and the image with issue removed. But just because an image is gory, which should not be surprising in a war zone, is not enough reason to exclude it. Nableezy (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If so, my mistake, but I am certain that photography of war-dead or people who have died from disasters is often civil crime if not always a military one. It is certainly against the UCMJ (aw well of the code of the United States) here in the United States. I still am opposed to the inclusion of (these) images because of (#3). There is no way to tell from a photo, even by an expert (which I do not concede any of us here to be) the difference between a dead Hamas or Afghan or Chechen or Tamil Tiger or to tell whether said photograph is doctored or current. Additionally, it is very easy to pull the rifle out of the hand of a dead "victim" ad then pose them in a heroic or pathetic pose. This unfortunately is just as true about the equivalent of the 13-year old Hitler Youth (or Boy Scout) pulled into the field by a cruel or desperate government (movement) as it would be for a hardened veteran of Jihad who volunteered to fight for the Sheikh on battlefields from Grozny to Kabul. Likewise the difference between a career soldier and a reservist cannot be told by a corpse.

If you are suggesting that displaying these images would be in violation of us law, i think you have to back that up, because that is truly a showstopper to this whole conversation. As far #3, that is why we depend on your sources, if they say it was from that we take them for their word. Nableezy (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Current lack of images

Without graphic images this discussion is theoretical at the moment. Unless Fair Use images are used. Please see commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Concerning graphic images of this war there are no such free images on the Commons yet.

Misplaced Pages is not censored, and graphic images are on many pages. See commons:Category:War casualties. To remove such images from English Misplaced Pages is a form of systemic bias. It is a systemic bias in favor of war industries. When there are images of the casualties of both sides then there is balance. It counterbalances all the gungho propaganda and corporate propaganda and religious propaganda from all sides in this conflict. Please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No Sir, we'll be "emotinal", "CNN Method Conspiracy Theoretic" and "propagandistic". You want our lovely Misplaced Pages to aid the terrorist organization Hamas by showing the pictures??!!!! --Darwish07 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize at first that you were being sarcastic. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Images should not be censored at all. This is an article regarding war, any reader will expect images depicting this. I would hate to see Misplaced Pages become a place where war is a fun game for all and death something like we see in the movies. Removing or censoring these images is very wrong. Superpie (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I protest at the highest level WanderSage's offensive and obscene comments at the head of this section. Said WanderSage : "pictures of slaughtered Palestinian children should also be removed, even though they are contantly (sic) put back up. Misplaced Pages is not a snuf (sic) site." The The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "snuff" as "explicit pornography culminating in the actual violent death of a participant in a sex act." Other dictionaries agree on this psychotic sexual aspect to the word 'snuff'. For WanderSage to in any way whatsoever associate pornography with dead children is supremely disturbing. I strongly request an open apology from this editor, and that the editor strikethrough his highly objectionable comments above at once. RomaC (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, I agree that the use of the term is somewhat inappropriate, but I think that these sort of images can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three. V. Joe (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Not only that, putting in graphic pictures in the middle of this war is not appropriate. The pictures' legitimacy has not been established. Just as France 2 recently had to apologize for putting out pictures of an unrelated incident from 2005 and claiming it belongs to this conflict, the pictures MUST be verified before we use them at wiki. Putting up pictures of this nature now is mere propaganda and should be left to news agencies NOT wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

a) What is your definition of an "established" picture?

b) Where's the claim in Misplaced Pages guidelines that say we should not put a picture until the war is over?

c) How are you judging an image that's been everywhere on most of respectful news agencies by arrogantly calling it a propaganda?

d) Do you have references that prove that this particular image is a propaganda?

e) Are you trying to claim that we should get a report from the court or something similar to be sure that the picture is true? If not, why are you trying to mix things up by mentioning the Frace 2 case?

f) Do you prefer a picture of a Palestinian little girl with a rose in her hand giving it to an IDF soldier instead? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WanderSage and V. Joe, Do not even dare to call our precious dead children images "pornography", "neo-nazi" or "death-cults". Do you understand? I hope you both do, cause I'm willing to lose my account if you said those silly terms on our precious children again. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people forget that "Give me liberty or give me death" is not an exclusively Islamic concept. Tiamut 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded four protest pics with casualty pics I uploaded four of my now public domain photos At Gaza protest category on wikicommons. Since the posters are collages for criticism sake, the photos themselves are fair use as well as public domain. One has white house and inaugural stand in back ground. I'll let others decide which to upload and use. I have some bigger crowd shots but couldn't find anything high to jump on for good overview. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No copyvio, no gaming the system

I hate copyright laws with a passion, and the issues here are a clear example of why the system is broken. However, the system exists, and we must respect it. Misplaced Pages will cease to exist if copyright holders sue us for continuous copyright violations. I understand all the due weight positions, but this is resolved by no putting pictures, it is not resolved by faking copyrights, using ambiguity, and otherwise trying to game the system. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The contentious image does have a copyright, and is on Misplaced Pages, but it is in Arabic. Can somebody who can read the original licence please transfer it to English Misplaced Pages, or, alternatively, delete the image if it is a copyright violation? The image on Arabic and English wikipedia are here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Gaza_2008.jpg
• http://ar.wikipedia.org/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Gaza_criminal_Dec_2008_-2.jpg

cojoco (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You obviously misunderstand how this works. The fact that the image is on the Arabic Misplaced Pages means nothing. The image is not free. The person who uploaded it to the Arabic Misplaced Pages made a fair-use claim. If you, or someone else, is willing to make one here, go ahead. I'm not sure it'll stand. Otherwise, it'll be deleted. The description on the Arabic Misplaced Pages is irrelevant. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately I have acquired more understanding of "how this works" as this discussion has progressed. You state that the person who uploaded it to the Arabic Misplaced Pages made a fair-use claim. How do you know this? How do you know that the image is not free? I would appreciate having an understanding of how you came to this view. cojoco (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipidea has a policy of not censoring any kind of image. For instance, Images of exlpicit sexual content appear in related articles. Why should graphic images be censored? The "graphic" nature is a vital part of the truth. I am shocked that the article does not contain one image of civilians wounded on both sides for comparison purposes. The UN and UNRWA have been concerned with possibilities of war crimes and use of forbidden weapons by Israel. Civilian injuries must be presented without censorship.Contrieng (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Make no mistake, the decision of including (or not) graphic images of human suffering in order to illustrate the article serves a political agenda. Including them to emotionally charge readers against Israel is just as pernicious as omitting them on the grounds that 'they are distasteful' in order to prevent readers from reaching a full extent of the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.

However I, as many others here, am deeply concerned about the double standarts presented by editors. If we should completely avoid those pictures, then for the sake of neutrality and consistency we should do the same with every other article that deals with sensible issues. And before any outcries of anti-semitism from people thinking I'm too making mention of the Holocaust page, I could cite the article for the Ossetia conflict last year, that too had a considerable toll of civilian casualties, of which not one picture was added to illustrate this point.

For 3

Alleged violations of international law

The opening Falk's statement and Hamas point of view paragraphs in the Palestinian militant section reads like a rebuttal. This doesn't seem neutral. The information could be used somewhere but doesn't seem appropriate here.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs argues that Hamas violates the Rome statute: "Utilizing the presence of a civilian to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations." However, as the Israeli shelling of a school did demonstrate, the presence of a civilian does not appear to render it to be immune from military operations, and thus does not violate the Rome statute. This appears to be an amusing inconsistency. cojoco (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas violates the Rome statutes, then the IDF does. It has taken several years to argue before the Israeli Supreme Court that the persistent use by the IDF of Palestinians as human shields is illegal. The Court at one point agreed it was a violation of international law. The IDF persisted in the practice, even in 2007. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable source alleging the IDF to do so in THIS conflict? For the Hamas we have plenty, which for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Omrim (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite the sources. Who is close enough on the ground to know? It is a generic accusation that Hamas is positioned within civilian areas, as Haganah in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem under siege, was positioned on rooftops and houses in civilian areas, and told to shoot from there. This, as I said elsewhere, is just, as far as I can see, a Hasbara strategem, as repeated in 2006, where it was largely found to be untrue (different kind of battle), to insinuate Hamas are cowards for doing what Israel never does. Well Israel's IDF used human shields for more than a decade, against court orders. If Hamas is proven, as opposed to generic claims, to use shields in this way, by direct observation, then by all means edit that info in, hopefully from a reliable source. The assumption is, of course, that when you are under a siege, the honourable thing to do is to walk down the road, into the fields beyond your town, dig a trench or two under the drone photographing you in real time, so that when your adversary shoots, both you and he will not have ethical problems. No army in the history of the world has ever done that. Well, Leonidas did something similar, but I still ask why the largest mall in Israel, Azrieli shopping centre, is right next to Kirya military headquarters, Israel's defence ministry, not to speak of how ndefence industries are placed in Nazareth. Hypocrisy, in short. But very effective as a propaganda tool, admittedly.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN:Any reliable source alleging the IDF IS DOING so in THIS conflict? I thought not, more baseless allegations by Pro-Hamas/Palestinian editors. For Hamas we have plenty, which seems to be there modus operendi and for some reason are given very little attention in the article.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not using the proper header originally. Regardless of all of the above (which is important), do the first two lines of the By Palestinian militants section seem out of place? They come across as a rebuttal.Cptnono (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes made: /* By Palestinian militants */ International views which should come after participants so moved UN views. Allegations moved before rebuttalCptnono (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza Massacre" (again)

This is being discussed (again) in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Comments_2. I will welcome you all to (again) join the circus. Nableezy (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, NOT. Let it go. This is the English wikipedia not al jezeera et al.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So we should not represent the Arab name? What kind of argument is that? Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, Not what I said or meant, what I meant was: Misplaced Pages is NPOV and that the title should also be NPOV. However, I have nothing against the how it is known in the Arab world being in the lead along with Operation cast Lead. I believe that there is plenty of precedent for that in wikipedia. I also remember Black Saturday Massacre being in the lead for awhile.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And having just checked, it still is.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, refers to an intensification of the Hamas-Israel conflict on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The operation has been termed the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) by Hamas leaders and much of the media in the Arab World."--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is because it was reverted after tundrabuggy put this in (multiple times). And I agree with you the title needs to be NPOV, that is why the title of the article is 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. No one is suggesting to use the arab name as the title, just having the arab name along with the israeli name. Nableezy (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Arabic wiki sucks as the system here! the problem o we know all why it sucks!! --Retrospectiva 3 (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is the 29th quasi-racist statement I have read so far. Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians

Civilian totals mentioned throughout the article place a focus on women and children which may come across a little preachy. This negatively affects neutrality. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk)

I would agree if we had 'civilian' totals, but all the sources say explicitly that the counts only include 'women and children.' That potential includes any women or children who are 'militants' and discounts any men who are 'civilians.' As it is, I think it would be incorrect to substitute the wording the sources use in relation to the numbers. Nableezy (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. In this kind of fighting it may be impossible to distinguish fighters from civilians, so that "women and children" are the best proxy for "civilians" which we have. The effect on neutrality may be hard to judge, as this may under-estimate the number of civilians. cojoco (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree to a certain extent but since the numbers are primarily estimates a few (at least percentage wise) off is not a concern. The deaths of women and children have historically been held in a different regard then those of men. I believe the consistent use of those terms impacts neutrality but still needs to be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.88.215 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2009

But we have no idea how much off the numbers of 'women and children' would be with total civilian. Up to 100% of the women and children could conceivably be 'militants' and up to 100% of the men could be 'civilians.' If we can find a source for civilian then we should put that in its place, but we dont have any sources that give a 'civilian' casualty count. I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that. Reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conceivable yes but not probable. All fun debate aside I don't think anyone truly believes the scenarios you laid out. Sources need to be used but turning an eye to what is reality while allowing an article to become increasingly less neutral is more of a concern than what exact term is used. Women and children are not the focus of this article. Women and children have a greater impact on the reader. There will be a proper place when we are not dealing with estimates and preliminary numbers. It should be there but not at such an extent. Also, is the breakdown of women and children often used in the casualty tables of other military conflicts? (not trying to be contradictory or snide with that last bit) Edit: "I would be cool with a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that." Totally reasonable by the way but I think we will start running into more encompassing numbers pretty soon. Sounds OK for now.

I dont even believe that the scenario is true, just trying to show that we cant say that 'women and children' == 'civilians.' I would ask anybody else with an opinion to either concur or object to the idea me and person above me agreed to, namely: 'a notice that all civilian counts are confined to women and children and listing them as civilian after that' Nableezy (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And once we have some sources that report the 'civilian' count, I'm all for having that as the standard without qualification. Nableezy (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"The UN said that civilian casualties, defined only as women and children, were 62..." Was that you Nableezy? Are smiley faces bad form in discussion pages? In all seriousness, the article is getting updated with recent events but this section (along with several others) are running the risk of getting jumbled since the previous day's news isn't being integrated correctly/removed.67.170.88.215 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me like 2 weeks ago, I assume that has been updated with more recent stats. That line came from the first few days. Nableezy (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And looking at the current article, that line looks fine, it is clearly preface by 'On December 31' in the opening of the paragraph. But this seciont is seriously dated and needs more recent info, it as if everything that is in writing about civilian casualties stopped on Dec 31, so the reader looking at the graphs next to it would see this 62 number without any further follow up and assume that it represent the present numbers. This should certainly be remedied by adding more up to date information, or just replacing most of the info with up to date info. I dont think we need to know that as of Dec 31 62 were dead, and as of Jan 5 100 (i dont know the numbers just an example), we should just state that as of (most recent date were numbers are available) this many of these people were killed. Nableezy (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that line before the women and children discussion came up recently so I got a kick out of it when I did finally notice. I assume a section devoted to civilians will have to be worked on or tied in a little cleaner after the dust settles.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I personally think someone who isnt coming up on 3rr should try to update and rework it now, with the beginning referencing how civilian is defined for each side and using the term civilian then on. Nableezy (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun Casualties figures

Most media outlets (CNN, NYT just to name a couple) report 30 dead in the incident. However, somehow only the initially reported number of "70" made its way to the article. The 30 figure is also given by more current sources (Jan 6th through 9th, vs. Jan 4 for the 70 figure ref.201). Even the Telegraph Link now went dead (ref. 202). The section should be changed to mention the updated figure (30). Thoughts? other sources you'de like to share?--Omrim (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? The "Jenin Massacre" story all over again... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

52 dead confirmed with up to half being civilians fits the description of a massacre. That the IDF has committed atrocities seems to be something you cannot comprehend. Nableezy (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If these are the updated figures then go ahead and update the article. Rabend (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan. 11, 2007 New York Times says 93 Palestinian women dead

Israeli Troops Push Into Gaza City in Day of Fierce Fighting. By Steven Erlanger and Ethan Bronner. Jan. 11, 2009. New York Times.

The number is in the notes section of the infobox until more recent numbers from well-known media or wire services are found. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Raid Gaza!

Placed the section here since it is awkwardly located n in the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. The makers don't represent a international entity so it shouldn't be there but should it be here?--23prootie (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Raid Gaza! is of such little notability that it should not be included in the (already long) article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But where should it be placed?--23prootie (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think an article on the cyberspace reaction to the war on Gaza would be worth creating. Raid Gaza! could be placed there, and the cyber attacks info, SecondLife demos, etc. If you start such an article, I could pitch in with sources and text. Tiamut 16:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF on dead. "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas

We should use the on-the-record number in the infobox not the 550 number in my opinion.

In a closed-door briefing a high-ranking army officer said Israeli troops had killed more than 550 Palestinian fighters since the operation began, a senior military official told AFP.

Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal declined to confirm the number but said "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas, had been killed since Israel launched its offensive on December 27.

Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

The multi-use wikicode for the ref is <ref name=afp2009jan10/>

Publicly, the IDF is saying "several hundred." In my opinion that is the number we should ascribe to them since that is the number they stand by publicly. Otherwise this 550 number sounds like original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All these figures are rubbery. We have 879 death, composed of more than 550 Hamas fighters (IDF) and 444 civilians (MoH), which of course means we have 879 deaths, or 994 deaths somehow, i.e, a disparity of more than 115. The MoH one is quite specific, the IDF one is a round figure, based on principles that do not discriminate between Hamas administrative people (police cadets) and militants.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is probably why publicly the IDF is no longer claiming that only one quarter of the Palestinian dead are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok at this point it is clear that IDF shouldn't be quoted since the numbers simply don't add up. The IDF's numbers are also unclear (do they include policemen?). I'm removing the IDF claim from the infobox.VR _talk 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

MoH gives no number for total number of civilian dead

I don't think we should put a total number like 444+ in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilian dead. MoH has not made an estimate for the total number in awhile. That 444+ number came from a Misplaced Pages editor totaling up numbers for children, women, elderly, aid workers, etc.. that the MoH has given.

That total number is original research on our part. Plus that total does not include civilian men who were killed. Also, there is some unavoidable duplication between the numbers for women and elderly.

Readers can follow the references and decide. We let the readers decide what to believe. By the way, linked below is an article about the MoH source, and this article puts all these numbers in perspective:

The macabre count of a doctor in Gaza. Jan. 11, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

I think it should just say "see notes" or "several hundred" in the infobox for the total number of Palestinian civilians.

I think using total numbers for fighters or civilians puts words in the mouth of IDF and MoH spokespeople. See the previous talk section.

That is original research on our part. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but let's wait to hear what others have say as this is a very controversial issue.--Omrim (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for addressing tensions over imagery

I have reviewed the most recent discussion over the inclusion of graphic imagery into the article from Gaza. I also weighed in with my opinion at one point, arguing essentially that images are used as documentary records and importantly as tools for "imagining."

By that I mean they are used to help viewers come to approach and understanding of events that are difficult to comprehend because of their extreme nature. I drew from the example of the WWII Holocaust because this is easily the most obvious example. The enormity of suffering during that period is incomprehensible to those who were not present. In an attempt to render it intelligible photographic representations have routinely been included in nearly all accounts of that moment in history. (One need only pause and reflect on how much of our collective "imagination" of the suffering during the Holocaust has been formed by graphical representations and semi-fictionalized film accounts to see the important role these media have played in conveying the weight of the Holocaust).

The current conflict has been characterized by the high number of deaths of civilians, especially women and children. During this conflict there have been instances where entire families have been wiped out with only one or two members remaining. Hundreds of children have been killed. The gravity of these incidents deserve a multimedia account to help render them in our minds. An accurate presentation of these events would not exclude that in my opinion and I am unmoved by arguments to exclude such representations based on their "graphic" or "distasteful" nature alone.

I am more concerned with issues of licensing, authenticity of images and the unqieu difficulties of assembling and formatting images in a slightly disorganized article of an ongoing conflict. Therefore my current proposal for addressing our contentions is the following:

1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).

This proposal resolves the issues of licensing and authenticity since the cited source would be responsible for determing both. Please discuss this proposal as a possible (temporary) resolution to our disagreement over image inclusions.

(PS. I noticed someone removed the pictures I included from the wiki Holocaust page. I want to emphasize again that I'm not trying to draw direct, general, parallels to the Holocaust nor am I trying to accuse Israel of a systematic, intentional genocide as was carried out in the Holocaust. as I noted above I've drawn a limited comparison to the Holocaust because of the notable use of multi-media approaches to developing an account of that period and the traditional inclusion of images into nearly all accounts of the Holocaust.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea:

1. Find slideshows from RS that provide photo-documentary representations of the conflict and casualties.
2. Put these in the external links and note their inclusion somewhere visible in the article in an appropriate section (Lead, casualties section and/or infobox would be suggestions).

I have seen this done in Misplaced Pages articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Superb idea. This approach will also make it possible to put a disclaimer above the link, allowing readers to make the choice whether or not to look at images truly representative of the massacre.

How about the "Gaza Kill and Maim" series at cryptome.org?--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thrylos000, your explanation of the role of images here is a breath of fresh air. Your proposed solution does kind of avoid the issue i.e. what I regard as the root causes of what has turned out to be yet another controversy. In that sense I have some reservations but it's such a simple, practical solution that could be implemented quickly I think we should just go for it. It's a lot better than nothing. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Chikamatsu. Your idea sounds good. Cryptome is notable, and has stood up to government scrutiny, and internet host attempts to shut it down. So the images will likely remain accessible. The index for all the Gaza photo gallery pages is at http://cryptome.info/0001/gaza-kill/gaza-kill-photos.htm

Some of the photos are harrowing, and so a warning should be put on the link from here. The galleries include some Israeli casualty photos too.

Any other galleries for this war? --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also want to have a short soapy rant about absurb accusations of 'snuff', 'pornography' etc when we're dealing with graphic photos of violent deaths in an article about a war. Apart from completely ignoring guidelines it's such a parochial way of thinking. I'm really sick to death of people trying to impose their irrational so called moral values on other people to distort representations of objective reality. I happen to live in Thailand at the moment and the Thai media have absolutely no reservations about including extremely graphic things in their reports about crimes, suicides, war etc. Why ? I don't know and I don't care because it's not my place to moralise about these things. We're not colonial masters/missionaries trying to correct the errors of irrational and evil foreigners for their own good who want to destroy the beautiful and righteous values and freedoms of the good ole'U.S of A etc and all that profoundly stupid nonsense. We absolutely cannot have the kind of parochial values you see so much in the US media contaminating this encyclopedia. Normal programming has now resumed. Please continue. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Normal programming has now resumed." Lol. Maybe that can be the slogan of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What does 'absurb' mean ? Jeez, this Sean.hoyland bloke is some kind of moron. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links would be a good solution for now. I don't think a warning is appropriate, as this could be used as an argument against including images in the article, and I hope we're past that now. Some sensitivity in the wording of the links should give people an idea of what to expect. When images become available with solid licensing, some should be added to the article. cojoco (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps of some use

'This is one of the reasons the air attack was carried out as a surprise. The IDF, which planned to attack buildings and sites populated by hundreds of people, did not warn them in advance to leave, but intended to kill a great many of them, and succeeded. . . It is not clear, for example, what advantage or military gain stems from the intentional killing of a hundred or more Palestinian policemen standing on parade. Reuven Pedatzur, 'The mistakes of Cast Lead,‘, Haaretz 08/01/2009

They are classified as terrorists and militants by the IDF's Hamas kill sheet. In fact they were part of the civilian administrative infrastructure's personnel. Police forces, anywhere, are not counted as part of the military. These were then civilians hit without warning, despite the frequent rhetoric about Israel's purity of arms, and the distinction between civilians and militants.Nishidani (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are incorrect Nishidani, in many countries, Burma, India, and Indonesia to name a few, the police are part and parcel of the military. Even to the point of being part of the Ministry of Defense. Then there is the fact that no countries police are exactly alike. For instance the police in the UK do not regularly carry firearms while the Carabinieri are heavily armed. Many police forces are in reality paramilitary forces, see Constabulary, gendarmerie and national guard. Plus many of the paramilitary forces operating in the Middle East and the world may maintain their own military police when the organizations themselves are considered terrorist organizations in the countries that they operate. The real question is are the "police" maintained by Hamas actually police or an extension of their paramilitary. Was this a way to legalise the continuous existence of armed Hamas combatants?--98.114.235.212 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me that the early 'neutral' wiki did have in it the fact that the minute choswen for the attack coincided with the precise time for children to be released from schools in Gaza, and one report said something of the order of 200,000 were in the streets at that time. This has been elided of course.Nishidani (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can prove intention in this case. And I hope you're not suggesting that Israel planned the attack so that as many school kids as possible will be killed. Rabend (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. Pedatzur said mass killing of policfe cadets who were civil service people, not militants, was intentional. Many sources noted that the timing coincided with the time children left school and were on their way home. Whatever the intention, the effect was that of creating a very large street audience to admire the precision bombing of 100 targets in 4 minutes. Stuff pour encourager les autres. I'll try to find the BBC reports I read on this tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Palestinian children attend school on saturdays. Rabend (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, Palestinians are not Americans and Europeans, they probably go to school from Sat to Wed (take Thurs and Fri off) like other people do in some Muslim countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Rabend (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even the earliest UN reports codnemed the timing exactly for this matter. You made me remember this fact, I'm going to add it to a relative paragraph. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to the controversial nature of defining this, I, once again, say that "policemen" should be classified neither as militants nor civilians, but rather independently listed.VR _talk 03:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very sensible approach to this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of this article is illogical

Israel is a political entity, a country; Gaza is a geographic name and denotes neither a country nor political entity. More accurate would be 2008-2009 Israel–Hamas conflict or 2008-2009 Israel–Hamas war. David Shankbone 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See /Requested Move 4 January 2009. -- tariqabjotu 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a name for a geographical entity listed as such everywhere, a place which, under US sponsorship and auspices, held elections. In the elections, duly approved as properly conducted, a political entity, Hamas, won, and took over the administration of this geographical entity. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Gaza is a city and the 'geographical entity' is The Gaza Strip. The various issues with the title and introduction to this article are currently being thrashed out on their own talk page. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your title suggests that Israelis are at war with Hamas, which is highly inaccurate. It should be called Israeli assault on Gaza as it is an invasion and assault on an entire city of people whereby non-Hamas members are slaughtered in large numbers. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Falastine... I don't think so. Rabend (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal views and soap boxing aside, Gaza has been more commonly used to refer to this conflict than Hamas.Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current name is more accepted. Rabend (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Please stop all the indenting, the paragraphs are only 5 inches wide on my browser.

2. The title should remain "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict". we need to wait until the dust settles,which it will, and then we can d-i-s-c-u-s-s this like the rational people that WE ALL are.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh - 1) it's a bit useless to ask people to structure their responses to satisfy your particular monitor settings; and 2) I thought the discussion above was quite rational. --David Shankbone 00:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The trouble with elections and democracies in general is that you can only vote for those who run or are allowed to run." Lyndon Larouche--98.114.235.212 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I object to your use of the phrase "only 5 inches wide" when you should be using metric units like sensible countries. I think this shows the inherent colonial, high-handed attitude of certain editors. I think we all know why they're called imperial units. I rest my case. Sorry, couldn't resist. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Touche--98.111.139.133 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The combatants involved are somewhat more than just Israel vs Hamas. Calling it the Israel Hamas war is too simplistic. Superpie (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As the original poster demonstrates, the political entities here are Israel and Hamas. Israel is openly targeting Hamas and Hamas is openly targeting Israel, so "Israel-Hamas" conflict would be appropriate. "Israel-Gaza conflict" is not NPOV because it clearly suggests that Israel is targeting the entire region and not merely the Hamas entity. While some people may claim that Israel is destroying the entire region, that is not Israel's own position and therefore we must not put this label on Israel. Similarly, those who believe that Hamas is destroying the entire region would be wrong to call it a "Hamas-Gaza" conflict, despite all the evidence of Hamas terrorism. Hamas officially is only trying to destroy Israel, not all of Gaza. And Israel is officially only trying to destroy Hamas -- first by peacibly removing their tunnels and funding, and then by responding to terrorist rockets with military attacks on Hamas targets. Nowhere is Israel stating a goal of destroying Gaza, in fact quite the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And 'Israel-Hamas' does not represent the POV of the Israeli govt that they are only attacking Hamas? Read the /Requested Move 4 January 2009 discussion and you can find out why the name was selected. Besides this, Hamas is the government of Gaza, some would argue de jure, nobody would argue de facto, an attack on Hamas is an attack on Gaza. And everything is a POV, including the majority of your comment (and mine) Nableezy (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo copyright

Description from Arabic Misplaced Pages as translated by Google Translate: Copyrighted

هذا العمل له حقوق محفوظة و غير مرخص. و لكنه يندرج تحت أحد بنود الاستعمال العادل استعمال عادل للصور أو استعمال عادل للملفات الصوتية. على أية حال، الشخص الذي أضاف هذه البطاقة يصرح أن استعمال هذا العملِ في المقالة "مجزرة غزة ديسمبر 2008" هو لتوضيح العمل في المقالة في صفحات الويكيبيديا العربية، المستضافة على خادمات في الولايات المتّحدة. مؤسسة ويكيميديا اللاربحية، ويتأهل تحت بند استعمال عادل تحت قانون حقوق النشر الأمريكي. أيّ استعمالات أخرى لهذه الصورة، قد يشكل خرقا لحقوق النشر. انظر en:Misplaced Pages:Fair use و en:Misplaced Pages:Copyrights.

للشخص الذي أضاف هذا القالب، الرجاء وضع تعليق تشرح به سبب احتمال خضوع هذه الصورة للاستعمال العادل.

أسباب الاستخدام العادل

أسباب الاستخدام العادل

  1. عدم وجود نسخة حرة من معارك تاريخها اليوم 27 ديسمبر 2008
  2. رفعت الصور بدقة منخفضة
  3. معظم من في الصورة متوفون في المعارك
  4. حدث تاريخي تصفه كثير من الأطراف بجريمة حرب وهي أكبر عملية قتال ضد الفلسطينيين منذ عام 1967
  5. ستستخدم الصورة كوسيلة توثيقية معلوماتية لدعم رواية الحدث.

تاريخ الملف

اضغط إحدى وصلات تاريخ/وقت لترى الملف كما كان في هذا الوقت.

opyrighted

This work has rights reserved and non-licensed. , But it falls under one of the items on the fair use of the fair use of images or just use the audio file. In any case, the person who said this card says that the use of this work in the article "Gaza massacre in December 2008" is to explain in the article in the pages of Arab Aloueckebedea, hosted on maids in the United States. Profit Wikimedia Foundation, and qualify under fair use under U.S. copyright law. Any other uses of this image, may constitute a breach of copyright. See en: Misplaced Pages: Fair use and en: Misplaced Pages: Copyrights.

The person who added this template, please explain the reason for the suspension of the possibility that such use of the image to the fair.

Employment, equitable

   1. The absence of a free copy of the history of battles today December 27, 2008
   2. The pictures accurately low
   3. Most of the dead in the picture in the fighting
   4. It describes a historic event, many of the parties, the biggest war crime of the process of fighting against Palestinians since 1967
   5. Will be used as a photo documentary information to support the version of the event.

History file

Click one of the links to the date / time to view the file as it was at this time.

the causes of fair use --23prootie (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reservists

Earlier in the conflict Israel had sent 10,000 soldiers on ground. Now Israel has sent an unknown number of reservists, so the 10,000 figure doesn't seem appropriate anymore. It is also unclear if the 150 soldiers wounded are still in battle or not. Therefore I've listed just the total number, as we have the Hamas total number of combatants.VR _talk 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF figures

The IDF figures on Palestinian militants dead has been debated previously. The IDF claim that 550 were dead, apparently contradicts the claim that 879 are dead, of whom 444 are civilians. The claim was made by an unnamed army officer in a "closed-door interview". Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal has declined to confirm the number. I don't see why we have to continue to make the claim that 550 Hamas militants were killed inside the infobox (we should make it in the casualties section).VR _talk 03:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Vice Regent, you need to stop reverting sourced information because it doesn't adhere to your own personal biases. You've already broken the 3 revert rule many times over already today. This is not what Misplaced Pages is about. We've already discussed this (see archives), and have decided that until indpendent varifications are available, Hamas sources will be used for the civilan count, and IDF sources for the militant count. WanderSage (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I reject your criticism of me, and ask you to focus on the material.

"Hamas sources will be used for the civilan count" when are we using Hamas for the civilian count?

Where was it decided that we would use "IDF sources for the militant count", please point me to the discussion. Thanks.VR _talk 03:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do you think the Ministry of Health is centered? Ramallah? No, it's the Gazan Ministry of Health. And given the fact that Hamas' politcal rivals were killed or exiled in 2007, I'm hesistant to say that it is under the auspices of Fatah. WanderSage (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well actually the office of the Palestinian Helath Minister is in Ramallah.

Satirical comments aside, the sources don't claim that the source is Hamas, but rather Palestinian officials. Do you have sources saying otherwise?

I also note that you have failed to tell me where in the archives it was agreed to use IDF as a source in the infobox for Palestinian casualties.VR _talk 04:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas-run ministry of health" . Regarding the consensus on using IDF numbers, it's not my job to comb through the archive for you, but it is your responsibility to do exactly that before removing sourced information. WanderSage (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is the government of the Gaza Strip, there numbers should be taken with that weight, the government of the gaza strip's ministry of health released those figures. We do not say the republican government of the united states made the following statement, we say the united states released this statement. The same should apply hear, it should simply be the ministry of health or the gaza ministry of health. Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WanderSage, neither of those sources mention the statistics under question. And yes, I know that Hamas is considered the government of Gaza, just as Nableezy pointed out that the Republicans are considered the government of the US (though that will soon change).

"it's not my job to comb through the archive for you," Then you can also not claim that "We've already discussed this (see archives)".VR _talk 05:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did a bit of combing. I found that at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#IDF_on_dead._.22several_hundred.22_fighters.2C_most_of_them_from_Hamas there was consensus to not have the 550 number (the off the record number) in the infobox, but have the earlier IDF number which it said "on the record".

There was also previous agreement to not combine policemen numbers with militant ones: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_14#Combining_militants_and_policemen.VR _talk 05:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

{unindent) This is the latest info below quoted from: Israel warns of further escalation as Gaza death toll tops 850. By Adel Zaanoun. Jan. 10, 2009. Agence France-Presse.

In a closed-door briefing a high-ranking army officer said Israeli troops had killed more than 550 Palestinian fighters since the operation began, a senior military official told AFP.

Israeli army spokesman Jacob Dallal declined to confirm the number but said "several hundred" fighters, most of them from Hamas, had been killed since Israel launched its offensive on December 27.

Please use this URL: and not the Google one. They are the same AFP article, but the Google URL is not permanent and will likely disappear in a few days.

I think we should use the word "fighters" since that is what the IDF is publicly using. Hamas is not the only group fighting the Israelis in this war. I think we should use the public statements of the IDF, and not some secret third-person opinion of one IDF officer. Why use it? Every officer may have an opinion. What proof is there that this officer even exists? The IDF spokesman Jacob Dallal is a real person on the record.

See for info on Doctor Muawiya Hassanein who is providing the Palestinian casualty numbers. He is not Hamas.

Behind the desk in his modest office hangs a portrait of legendary Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his successor Mahmud Abbas -- pictures that virtually disappeared from Gaza officialdom after Hamas seized power in the territory in June 2007.

Here is more info on him from that article:

The head of emergency services for the Gaza Strip, Hassanein is the sole person who keeps a running track of the ever-escalating death toll of Israel's deadliest offensive ever in the overcrowded enclave.

The latest numbers from him may currently be this article: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A916588 --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll be going back to the IDF figure of 300, as this is widely reported.VR _talk 06:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That is info from articles dated Jan. 11, 2009. So it is more recent info than the info from the other older article. So it should be put in the infobox. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the 300 number, but you're earlier contention that we should remove the militant category alltogether was absurd. The numbers didnt add up when you only listed police and civilians, as well. But everyone should be aware that these numbers are tentitive and the Civilian and Militants numbers added together are not going to total the "Total Killed" number we are using, and we shouldn't try to make them. I won't even touch your "Republican-led Government" analogy to the situation in Gaza, unless you're also willing to concede that Republicans have killed or exiled every single democrat in Washington and last week shot voters in the leg who had in the past supported them. Maybe I just didn't hear about it WanderSage (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The democrats have not attempted a coup, nor have they tried to subvert the peoples will by unilaterally modifying the powers of the legislature and stripping away the powers of the executive. And im sorry that you keep making this assertion that they should not be treated as the government of (at least) Gaza (i think they should be treated as the government of the PNA), but like it or not, in what was widely reported to be the 'freest and fairest' election the arab world had ever seen, Hamas won. Without intimidation or violence, and without the support of american, eu, saudi . . . support that fatah had, they won because more people voted for them. and if the democrats had attempted a coup, committed treason by conspiring with an outside power to attempt to subvert the will of the people, i bet quite a few would be in guantanamo right now. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

I'm worried about the increasing repetition of facts. The article is already 186 KB long. According to Misplaced Pages:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb the article is way too long, as any article over 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided."

In this context it doesn't help when users add lengthy quotes into the article, or when they repeat information in the same section. Repetition also has POV implications, as repeating one sides arguments gives the appearance of more weight to that side.

In the last half hour, there are two examples of this:

• Omrim added the statement "Israeli officers said they found the death toll published by Hamas grossly exaggerated." Yet the paragraph right above it already says "According to IDF officers, the number of casualties reported by Hamas is grossly exaggerated." Why the repetition?
• Omrim added 'The report, by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, offered no evidence that the attack was deliberate, and Allegro Perched, a senior U.N. official in Jerusalem who helped draft the report on the incident for OCHA, added: "We are not making an accusation of deliberate action" by the Israelis.' Yet the paragraph one below it, already makes the same point, albeit much more concisely, 'The report, by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs...did not make any "accusations of deliberate action" at this time.' Once again why the repetition?

Note I'm disputing Omrim's reasoning or whether such facts should be in the article, but rather I find it completely unjustified that a user should create such repetitions. To be fair, Omrim isn't the only user who is adding repetitions, others (including myself) probably have as well at some point. Such actions need to stop, and we need to start summarizing if we are ever to get this article back at the 100 Kb borderline.VR _talk 03:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree no repetitions should be made. However, I undid your versions since none of the vesrion you edited (or more specifically - deleted) suggested that the reason is repetition, rather it suggested some unreliability of sources, which is not true. Also, by revision, I added BACK stuff which was removed with no discussion. Stuff well sourced and verified, much more accurate than someone's "summery" of facts which conveniently "misses" some relevant quotations in the source. I wasn't aware of the "summary" (it's hard to keep track and for that I apologize), and hence the repetitions. If anything, the "summeries" should be deleted, and not my exact quotations of sources. I, unlike some other users here, tend to rely on sources as accurately as possible, rather than harvesting what is convinient in each. Finally, such minor misunderstandings may be sorted out very easily and calmly in the user talk page. Running right away to the public discussion page to "show me off" is hardly a mature (or a productive) thing to do.--Omrim (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"If anything, the "summeries" should be deleted, and not my exact quotations of sources." Disagree completely. Adding quotations only serves to unnecessarily clutter up the space and increase the size of the article. It also creates a risk of copyright violations, esp. if the article looks more and more like a direct quotation from a source. On the contrary, concisely summarizing viewpoints is the way to go if the article is to be chopped in half (like it should be).

Regarding posting my messages here and not on your user page. I did say "To be fair, Omrim isn't the only user who is adding repetitions, others (including myself) probably have as well at some point" did I not? My message was directed to users in general.

Also, I and most users on wikipedia prefer to bring up disputes about something on the article talk page, as opposed to user talk page so that we can form a consensus. I really don't know where you are getting the bit about "show me off".VR _talk 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unless anyone has any further objections, I'm going to remove the repetitions which we agree shouldn't be made.VR _talk 06:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Already did it for you. See if you approve my version. As per your arguments, I agree we are in short supply of space, but this hardly justifies a section where every single UN official who have blamed Israel on the issue is quoted, while the IDF version gets a line and a half down the section, and where the only UN official who said something which may be remotly interpreted as not anti-Israeli, is ignored. Summaries are fine, as long as they contain all the elements of each sides version. As of copyright issues, you are correct of course, and I shall pay more attention to the issue from now on. --Omrim (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The repetitions have re-appeared. Moreover, as stated above, the IDF claim that the "Hamas figure" is grossly exaggerated is irrelevant. The casualty figures come from multiple sources and the one sourced here is, in fact, from a UN official. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, if the IDF claims that the numbers the MoH has provided are 'grossly exaggerated' it is indeed relevant. That the numbers have been accepted by a number of people, such as the UN should also be mentioned, but to not note that the IDF disputes the number would be incorrect in my view. Though, and I havent read the source since yesterday, this didnt seem like an official IDF release, rather some unknown officer. I think it would be best to say, an IDF officer (insert whatever word for claimed you want to use here) that the numbers as reported by Hamas, and accepted by the UN, is "grossly exaggerated." and I think grossly exaggerated should be in quotes. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And honestly I dont think it makes the IDF look any better for making this claim, in at least my eyes it make them look worse for questioning the reliability of the UN when they have refused to allow journalists in to verify precisely this information. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli response to Hamas claims

Omrim has added "Israeli officers said they found the death toll published by Hamas grossly exaggerated, pointing out that a week ago only three IDF soldiers were killed when a tank fired two rounds - which have a much larger impact than mortar rounds - into a building which was occupied by 50 IDF soldiers." to the report on the UNRWA school attack. The figure of 40 dead mentioned at the beginning of the section comes from John Ging, not from Hamas, according to the cited NYT article. Omrim's addition is therefore misleading and contradictory. I believe it should be deleted. However, if it is left in, it helps us to see the contemptuous attitude of the aggressor. NonZionist (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim's addition is not contradictory, only irrelevant. The fact is that we are not quoting Hamas figures, so an Israeli rebuttal is unnecessary. Now, this rebuttal should be added to the Timeline article, but in this article, where space is a key issue, it doesn't make sense to keep it.VR _talk 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly misleading. The source specifically states the casualties figure which is exaggerated according to the IDF - 42. Unless you suggest there are other 42 casualites we don't know about (totaling in about ~90 dead which would make interesting news), I fail to see how this is misleading. Also, I didn't put it there, I just reverted the deletion of it, as this is VERY relevant (unless you think that the IDF side of the story is irrelevant, a thing in which I can hardly find any logic).--Omrim (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case it would be less misleading to state that IDF is claiming the number 42 is exaggerated, since that is what the wikipedia article claims.VR _talk 05:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Logic seems to be in short supply around here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith accusations, unfortunately, are not.VR _talk 05:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the idf is saying the number is actually 42 and that hamas 'grossly exaggerated' the initial estimates of (i think) 70+. Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've removed the mention of Hamas, and instead used the words "official death toll", since we refer to Palestinian medics in the article but not Hamas. I believe that's a fair compromise.VR _talk 06:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur.--Omrim (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC) And Nableezy, the 70 figure belongs to the Zeitoun incident, while we are discussing the UNRWA school. Only goes to show how terrible is this conflict, that we are even unable to keep track of terrible incidents, which each by itself, if happened out of the current context, would have gotten far more attention.--Omrim (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, hard to keep track Nableezy (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian border guard killed

Under casualities, the following sentence (One Egyptian border guard was killed and one was wounded by Hamas gunmen on December 28) might not be accurate as there is nothing to indicate that Hamas was involved in the incident, on the 27th Dec a palestinian was killed by the border guards while trying to escape to Egypt, this incident might habe been in retaliation, a more accurate description would be to replace (Hamas gunmen) by (shots from the palestinian side) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.217.107 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should just say the border guard was killed, we dont differentiate between the israeli soldiers who died as a result of friendly fire as killed by the idf. The casualty count is sufficient with just casualties of all involved parties. Nableezy (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC).

On a separate note two Egyptian policemen and and two Egyptian children were wounded yesterday by a bomb shrapnel. VR _talk 08:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian Aid

Somebody seems to think that there is no relevance to listing the quantities of aid that enter Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing from Israel. I have put the listing in twice, and each time, it disappears within a day. Since there are so many edits, it is difficult to identify who is doing this - whoever it is does not write comments.

If there is a valid reason NOT to have this information, I would like to hear it. I for one think it is relevant because much of the media coverage implies that aid does not get through, or is being restricted by Israel, which is clearly not true. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If someone is objecting to a succinct listing of aid and is deleting that from the article, please refrain from deletion until this point is resolved here. Rabend (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: since a humanitarian crisis is going on in Gaza, to a greater or lesser extent (depends on who's being asked), and Israel is being blamed for it, I think that it's important to add another facet to the description of the situation, by supplying these facts. Thus, the reader has a chance to decide for himself the degree of the severity of the humanitarian crisis. Our job is to supply the facts (but in a succinct fashion, of course) Rabend (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The crisis is not described on day by day basis, so the section of aid should not be described using day by day basis. This is unfair. Return the info if you like, but put it in one paragraph, not in that weird and deceiving format it was in before. I also doubt this macro-detailing of the number of trucks each day, just sum it up. This is "trickle of aid" as the UN said and "pitful gesture" as Amnesty said. --Darwish07 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic (possibly dishonest) editing

A few minutes ago the graph of casualties was changed by User:Cflm001. The edit summary said this was a 'minor edit' with the graph being replaced by a 'vector version'. However, alongside, in the new graph the number of Palestinian casualties declined dramatically from 857 to 683. Multiple sources support the original figure and if User:Cflm001 had some evidence for the lower figure, I would welcome him to present that on the talk page. However, to change the figure with a "minor edit" edit summary suggesting just a change in format is, in my opinion, not entirely honest. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof knocking does not belong to the "Israel media campaign" sections

• I'm going to move this "roof knocking" paragraph to the Planning section. The planning section already have mentioning of leaflets, warning people and such, so I'm going to mix this info with it. "Roof knocking" does not relate the media campaigns in any possible way.

• Second point, and the important one, is that editors have twisted the facts from the cited reference making the info under "protecting civilians" section, although it's clear in the reference that the quotes was not for protecting civilians, but as psychological warfare. I'll modify that too. Be honest please folks. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And to be clear, the reference said: "Israel also stepped up its psychological campaign Monday, trying to turn Gazans against Hamas.." then typed the messages. --Darwish07 (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving that. Someone mentioned it's positioning as an example of anti-Israeli bias the other day and they had a valid point. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tahdiya or hudna?

The cease fire between June till recently was not a Hudna (as written in the article), but a Tahdiya. Below source explains the differences and cites sources.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=582&PID=0&IID=2224

I recommend you add this to the article.

Tuvia, Israel January 12th 2009

I think you're right. Through the period, Haaretz referred to its as a Tahidiyya (sp.?) and not a hudna, which tended to be reserved for Hamas's negotiating stance, according to which they would be prepared to make a 'hudna' for 25 years with Israel, if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. At least this is my strong memory of consistent usage by commentators in that newspaper. I see on checking wiki that the terms are defined differently however. Perhaps an Arabist could step in. Is the Israeli/Haaretz distinction consonant with Hamas usage?Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this WP:OR from the article:

Hamas ideology does not allow a permanent cease-fire with a non-Muslim enemy, though a temporary truce up to ten years, called Hudna, is allowed.

I replaced it with the source provided above, noting the difference between a tahdiya and a hudna and that this was a tahdiya and not a hudna. Thanks. Tiamut 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the UN picture big enough?

It fills the entire screen! I don't know how to resize it though. It wasn't like that last time I looked.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. I tried to make it bigger so that people would stop ignoring them but I seem to have accidentally made it smaller. Oh well. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)..and for a more sensible explanation, whoever put it in or changed it just forgot to use thumb to let the browser resize it automatically. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Lead

The lead is under attack by several editors who don't like both names for the conflict being used in the lead. A large number of different objections have been argued, all of which failed to get consensus. Now open attacking the lead has commenced, what is to be done? RomaC (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The censoring enemies, after their false-logic tanks being depleted, have begun satisfying their means by abuse and disproportionate Power. They think no one will stop them, but the "censoring resistance group" is going to fight the foreign occupiers till the end. They've declared that it's better to die on their feet than to walk crawling on their knees. The censoring group, ignoring all the UN International Misplaced Pages rules, stores and manufactures around 200 nuclear bombs including advanced socketpuppeting and wikilawyering tools. Although they may have thought that the "censoring resistence" is dead, we're always here to defend Misplaced Pages. --Darwish07 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the first paragraph is pretty awful now. What are the options (apart from having the lead in Thai script) ? Is anyone monitoring it closely enough to know who's doing this ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the first para was consensually agreed upon, and extensively debated, could we agree, or ask an administrative eye, to intervene and reestablish the agreed-upon version until the dissonance edits are justified, obtain consensus or are rejected, on the appropriate talk page?Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please look at this. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_suggestions. I don't take kindly to the misrepresentation. It's quite staggering. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Internal Links in Background Section

See also: List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 and 2009.

Is there a List of Israeli raids/incursions/executions in Gaza in 2008 and 2009? If there isn't, should there be? Trachys (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you but it's clear that many editors feel very strongly about this 'everyone keeps ignoring the rockets' issue. There should be something to balance those very high profile links (not sure where to find it though). I already removed even more of those same links to the rocket attack pages from the see also section a while back...and I have to say that the articles at the end of those links were perfect examples of context-free and consequently quite misleading information last time I looked. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right that such information would be useful for balance. I will try to find something on that and bring it here.

Might I suggest though, that we consider including a casulaty chart for 2008 and 2009? In the absence of detailed info on the number of Israeli raids, such a chart could provide some idea of their effect onn the ground and the effect of rocket fire on the ground for Israelis. Tiamut 14:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I can make the chart - any idea where we might find the monthly figures for 2008, pre-conflict? Trachys (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See Comparison: Casualties by year The latter site also graphs casualties day by day, so that we can see just who is driving the cycle of action and reaction. The pages links to articles in the Guardian(UK) that substantiate the figures. NonZionist (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Btselem collects casualty figures. They have a breakdown for the number killed in the Gaza Strip from January through to the end of November 2008here, with a month by months breakdown. I'll keep looking for more detailed info on their site and elsewhere for Israeli casualties and Palestinian casualties for December 2008 - December 2009 and post them here for you to use. Tiamut 15:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The breakdown for Israelis killed in Israel by Palestinians is here. The January to November 2008 total there (18) should be added to this one on Israelis killed in the territories by Palestinians. For soldiers killed, the info for January to November 2008 is here and here. Please note that the figures I gave for for Palestinian deaths include only those in Gaza, while the figures for Israeli deaths are for all those that toook place anywhere in Israel-Palestine, including fatalities for which Gaza Palestinians are not responsible. Tiamut 15:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's table view leading to all of the above information and more: . Tiamut 15:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. What about these: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Palestinians_killed_by_Israeli_security_forces_in_Gaza_Strip_2008.jpg#file http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Israeli_civilians_killed_by_Palestinians_in_Israel.jpg Trachys (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are good. But what about combining the two into one, with red columns for Palestinians and blue for Israelis, side by side in the month by month breakdown? Is it possible? Tiamut 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Combined: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Graph_showing_total_Israelis_and_Gazans_killed_by_month_for_2008.jpg Sources: and (for December 2008) Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Please add the image to the article, I've never before attempted to add an image and am not bold. Trachys (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. One minor critiques though: it's not that clear who is blue and who is red in the chart - a legend may be needed. Otherwise, great work and thanks. Tiamut 17:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, added. Trachys (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Tiamut 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on media installations and journalists - under "media campaign"?

Putting the attack on the journalists house under "media campaign" suggets it was an intentional attempt to harm journalists as part of the so called "media campaign". This is wrong. The entire sub-section should be moved under "notable incidents".--Omrim (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be moved under "notable incidents" too. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not our job to judge Israeli "intentions". We should report the ACTIONS, and the actions harm journalists. Killing off journalists is just as odious as other forms of censorship -- more so, one might think. Once again, the word "intentional" is used to whitewash an Israeli atrocity: There seems to be "no problem" with killing people, as long as we call the slaughter "unintentional". In truth, Israel has quite INTENTIONALLY initiated an unprovoked genocidal military aggression against the Gaza Strip, knowing full well that many innocent people would be killed or injured as a result. All of the killing that follows from that initial action should be deemed "intentional" as well. NonZionist (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We agree then, I'll move it to it's proper place. Where no changes will be made (I'll move it as is), and as Nonzionist said, not intentional agenda will be implicated (such as "genocidal" intentions, and killing journalists as a method of "censorship").--Omrim (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine in either section, and don't object to its being placed under "Notable incidents". Question: where should I put information about the arrests of journalists mentioned here 2 J'lem Arabs to be charged with violating IDF censorship? Tiamut 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This should go in the media section, I think, since the arrest is a derivative of the IDF's censorial policy (i.e. you report what we say you can't report -> we arrest you), which is already dealt with at that section.--Omrim (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, "notable" issues in the legal section

I find it very troubling that Darshowitz, A Harvard Law School Professor of Criminal Law and Human Rights is not considered by many editors notable enough to have his opinion quoted in the legal section. On the other hand the Qatar Minister of Foreign Affairs, The secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, and the head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza ARE notable enough to be considered experts in Int'l law, and thus are qouted in the section. Isn't that strange? Will someone care to explain?--Omrim (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Will those who object to Darshowitz being notable in that context please explain succinctly, since this doesn't reasonable. Rabend (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Qatar minister's remarks. I think Falk, Weiner & Co, and UNRWA (being UN) statements competently grounded, and do not think it sane to begin stuffing the section with Dershowitz, Grant or Lopez, or the Qatar FM's personal or advocacy remarks. Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dershowitz is notable as a criminal law expert, with vast experience, and as a strong advocate for Israel. I repeat, he has no competence in international law, or in international law governing human rights. His human rights work is a relique of his days as a lawyer for civil rights in the US. His recent work on the right of government to suspend human rights and the Geneva conventions is not taken seriously by any professional theorist of law I am familiar with. It is simply pure partisan advocacy, poorly argued and politically motivated. Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Omrim (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We need more information on the different Palestinian factions involved in the fighting

The information we have so far is in the article is both vague and incomplete. According to this source, , the factions involved include:

• the Qassam Brigades, affiliated with Hamas
• the Abu Ali Mustapha Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with the (secular, leftist) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Other sources: )
• the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, affiliated with (secular) Fatah
• Saraya al-Quds, affiliated with Islamic Jihad

The author, a Palestinian in Gaza, notes that news is disseminated through these armed wings of the various political parties and states that "One thing is widely recognised - the attack on Gaza has brought all armed resistance groups together."

According to this source, , in addition to hose listed above, other groups involved in the fighting include:

• The "An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades"
• The "National Resistance Brigades", affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
• the Popular Resistance Committees
• a previously unknown group called the "Eagles of Palestine"

I will be looking for more sources to post here and in the article. Tiamut 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing. Even though they are considered under Hamas, I am not entirely sure that they aren't a separate entity. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom sees them as separate, List of designated terrorist organizations, so does Hamas itself, and so does the RS consensus as per wikipedia having a separate article. The United States sees them as the same, as do some other countries.--Cerejota (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The official websites of Islamic Jihad's `military arm` al-Quds_Brigades, as well as Popular Resistance Committees's An-Nasser Salahuddin Brigades, have both officially announced their participation, respectively here and here. Alas, it is only in Arabic. The ArWiki entry has them included by the way. --Almasvault (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if a I write up a section that covers the different groups that make up the Palestinian resistance to this Israeli offensive? I'd like to cover their names, political affiliations, numbers (if known), weaponry, tactics, objectives, etc. None of that is covered in the article yet. Perhaps someone might be interested in making a similar section for the Israeli political and military forces involved? Tiamut 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Attorney General comments on procedure IDF military goals are being legally approved

Fellows, I'm restoring Israel Attorney General comments way IDF military goals are being legally approved during the conflict. Let me know if it violates any WP:* and feel free to make it more balanced. Thank You. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Need for a better diff/history tool

With so many people making edits, it is impossible to see at a glance which edits are vandalistic and which are not. What we need is:

• a history page that provides two additional textarea (scrollable) controls per line -- one showing text added and the other text deleted by the update
• a composite diff that analyzes the final version of the article and shows the origin of each block of added or deleted text

If the articles are stored in entry-sequence format, there would be no additional comparison overhead, since the composite diff would simply arrange the data in narrative sequence.

A tabular format could be used on the history page to present the new information. The composite diff could allow control over the number of versions compared simultaneously. NonZionist (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The original mentioned the first strike

Coincided with the school shift. This was elided. When I raised the topic, it was suggested Muslims don't go to school on Saturday. I did a brief check, others may be better at googling reliable sources.

(1)Israeli jets kill ‘at least 225’ in strikes on Gaza, Sunday Times 28/12/2008 Sunday Times 'Israel yesterday launched its largest raid on Gaza with two waves of air attacks that killed at least 225 people and injured more than 700, according to Palestinian doctors. Children on their way home from school and policemen parading for a graduation ceremony were the principal victims of a bloody few hours that left the territory in flames. December 28, 2008

(2) Still, there was a shocking quality to Saturday’s attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school. TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ETHAN BRONNER Israelis Say Strikes Against Hamas Will Continue, New York Times 27/12/2008

(3) I run into the street and everybody is running, children and grown-ups, all looking to see if their relatives and friends are alive. It is the time for children to go to school for the second shift, after the first shift finishes at 11.30am. A Palestinian in Gaza chronicles life under Israeli bombardment by Fida Qishta guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 December-Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of things that were mentioned in the intro forged by discussion on the lead page have since been removed, rather stealthily, and without discussion. Tiamut 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Their argument is weak, they just can't assume that everyone live their lives the way Westerners do. Muslims would take Thurs and Fri off not Sat and Sun. Still, the articles themselves should suffice.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is unclear at best. They claim "children on the way home from school" and "policemen parading" were the "principal victims" in the second paragraph. Then in the fourth they say "most of those killed were security men" and "but an unknown number of civilians were also among the dead." The only further mention of children were the children that were playing outside of a school: "One perfectly aimed missile demolished the Hamas-controlled Rafah police station. But the building next door was a school and several pupils were on the street outside when a huge explosion sent shards of shrapnel and concrete hurtling in all directions." Four teenagers were said to be in the morgue, including one fourteen year old. One man was said to have taken his dead 7 year old home to bury in his back yard. This is not a clear-cut article. If children going home from school were the "principal victims," I should think we would have heard considerably more about it! Not merely the mention of four or five children. Would need to see what the next day, less a little of the surprise and fog of war, has to say about it.

With their vandalism, the pro-Israel editors expose themselves. That is one of the few good things that come of this futile effort to reach consensus with fascists. What is to be done? The vandals have overwhelming force. Should we simply let them have their way, so that wikipedia becomes just another occupied territory? What choice do we have? Our one consolation is that evil self-destructs. Give it enough rope and it hangs itself. The collapse of the U.S. financial system will eventually affect Israel, at which point the Zionists may see the fallacy in making enemies everywhere. In the meantime, we who oppose fascism need a place where we can save the reports they censor and suppress. NonZionist (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey NonZionist, may I borrow a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? I left mine at the Secretly Controlling The World With Our Big Nose conference, and I got a feeling you might have a spare or a dozen. Rabend (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not your big nose that's the problem: It's your insanely destructive and ultimately self-defeating fascist ideology. Your attempt to cloak this poisonous ideology behind ethnicity is the equivalent of a terrorist hiding behind civilians. Even as a non-Jew, I find your tactic deeply offensive. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a fraudulent work, but some people seem to be using it as a manual. Like an earlier generation of fascists, they will do great harm, but they CANNOT prevail. NonZionist (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut out the crap both of you. And Rabend, that is the second time you have alluded to the Protocols while in dialogue with an interlocutor you disagree with.Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever mentioned them before. Rabend (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And I believe it's the second time he has done so with respect NonZionist's comments. So that's twice. I wonder, how many times did NonZionist specifically accused Israel in "genocidal" and other hidden motives? It is getting harder and harder to ignore (I'll keep trying though). Yet, I am relieved to know that our "big nose" is not the problem...--Omrim (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel bans Arab parties from coming election

• Israel bans Arab parties from coming election.
• Can we cover such developments in this article, and how and where? Tiamut 16:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like there are probably better places for this type of information, since it isn't directly related to the current conflict. Avruch 16:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You think so? I guess I'm having trouble looking at it objectively, since the decision directly impacts my so-called rights in this so-called democratic state. Sorry, I have to say I'm just more than a little bitter. Tiamut 16:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Raben, TY, I apologize for feeding. I also am going to attempt to lower my blood pressure.

I think that this event should be barely noted in this article (if at all) and should instead get its own article. Please keep in mind that this is not a done-deal by the Israeli government and the appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court might lead to the cancellation of this act.

Let us please agree to dump the term "fascism" when applied to the Jewish state or in any article not associated with Mussolini, Nazi Germany or Franco. I don't even like it in a talk page V. Joe (talk)

Completely irrelevant to this article. Try to stick to things that are actually a part of this conflict, and not random things to make Israel look bad.

And to the point - there are limits to what parties can run. A classic case of a democracy defending itself - an anti-democratic party, for instance, should not run, as the case of the Wiemar Republic showed us. Regarding a party that directly opposes the nature of a country (Jewish, in this case) - perhaps also justified to prevent its running. Meaning - the entire state, the system, the democracy, is built upon certain rules, certain assumptions and justification. In this case, it is the nature of Israel - both Jewish and Democratic. Actually, I believe (and hope) that the supreme court will reverse this decision, as it did before the last election. These are actual feelings in the Arab public, and it is in everyone's best interest to keep as many people as possible in the democratic system, and not operating outside it, feeling ousted. But this discussion is irrelevant for this article. okedem (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

if the article notes the gaza conflict as a cause of this action then it probably deserves a brief note in this article. otherwise it is a separate, although disgraceful, issue. the argument that the jewish nature of israel is not to be diluted with non-jews is probably also used by "settlers" participating in pogroms such as this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043795.html Untwirl (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tiamut's link suggests that one of the indicate consequences of the war is that a large minority of the Israeli electorate is to be disenfranchised because of their ethnic origins. That is quite unbelievable. I agree with Okedem's point. I don't think the Supreme Court would uphold the electoral commission's proposal. But this does not blind one to the fact, itself of significance, that an Electoral Commission could even make that kind of decision in a democracy. But it is a reliable source, and will have to eventually go into some section on aftyermath, consequences.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is much ado about nothing. I am 100% certain (well, 99.9%)that the Supreme Court will overrule it. It has happened in the past with other not-so-notable Israeli politicians who used their memberships in the electoral committee to make a small political fortune. As far as I recall, the last time the Supreme Court upheld such a decision, was when the committee disqualified Kach and Kahane Chai from taking part in the election.--Omrim (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? This isn't the place for emotional discussion about the conflict, or for critical comments of Israel. Everyone editing this page should be here to discuss the article, and ways to improve it, and nothing else. The issue of Israeli Arab political disenfranchisement is real, but not party to this article subject. Avruch 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rabend (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on medical facilitites and workers - subsection needed

• Israeli jets destroy Gaza baby clinic
• Stressed medics recount Gaza horrors

I want to combine this information with that of the 21 medical workers being killed, amon g other details in the article and other sources. Any objections? Tiamut 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, but keep in mind that I'll add info about Hamas terrorists disguising as doctors and nurses: . Rabend (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do! Here are other stories (2009-01-12) that need to be integrated into this article:

• Haaretz: Livni Promises Gaza Won't End in Durable Peace
• McClatchy: With Goals Unmet in Gaza, Israeli Military Wants More Time
• Human Rights Watch: Israel using whoite phosphorus, burning people alive
• Telegraph(UK): Injured Gaza Palestinians Unable to Receive Hospital Treatment
• Antiwar.com: Israel changes its story about UNWRA school attack two more times!
• Reuters: Israeli shrapnel causes injury and damage in Egypt
• Reuters: Israeli bombers fly over Egypt to bomb Gaza
• “Profil: Israel charges that Hamas has taken over the UNRWA

We should compile a list of the stories that do not make it into the article, for the benefit of people who prefer reality to Israeli propaganda. NonZionist (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Or Palestinian propaganda? Like it or not, there are two sides to this issue. To say that Hamas is fighting for Liberty/Jeffersonian Democracy/a British Parliamentary system or pluralism is like suggesting that William Wallace was fighting for Truth, Democracy and the American way. They are fighting for a "justice" which is not justice as I might see it and a Middle East devoid of a single living Jew. V. Joe (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, V. Joe, you are arguing against a long-dead stereotype, not against reality. That's WHY I am not persuaded by your rhetoric. I started out, long ago, as a supporter of Israel -- then I took a closer look. I invite you to do the same. What you find will astonish you.

Regarding your point above, the Palestinian Charter explicitly INCLUDES native Jews in its definition of "Palestinian". See Article 6: "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians." And if you read the Hamas Charter with an open mind, you will see again that the purpose of the organization is to resist the "Nazi-like" behavior of an invading force, not to combat Jews in general. Here is one Hamas leader:

As Salah Shehadeh himself said in an interview last May, "We do not fight Jews because they are Jews, but because they are occupying our lands. We do not fight them because of their faith, but because they are violating our rights."
-- Wendy Pearlman, "Israel's Indifference to Civilian Lives", Washington Report, Sep-Oct 2002, pages 8-9

• So far nine Israeli kindergartens and school have been directly hit by Hammas rockets in this conflict. No casualties were reported since Israel has suspended school in the southern areas. If we start mentioning each and every so called "civilian" target hit by the IDF, we should start a new section of civilians targets in Israel hit by Hamas. I assure you this section will be much longer. I suggest we try to keep our focus on notable incidents were multiple casualites have been reported, or poses some other unique importance (such as the Dignity)--Omrim (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Hamas has the resources or ingenuity to be called upon to defend 'justice' or concoct a plan to rid the world of a group of people. The name of the game for them is simply survival; the secular function being "survival of the featest". Cryptonio (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It certainly lacks the means, but if you followed Hamas's declarations and manifests over the years, one of its main purposes is the total destruction of Israel, and it routinely denies the Holocaust ever happened. Interestingly, it suggests that Zionists achieved the Balfour declaration thru the use of secret societies, such as the Freemasons. Rabend (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is notable that medical facilities and services are being attacked or otherwise having their work impeded. See also:

• Gaza Strip: Israeli attacks and the right to health Source: International Federation of Health and Human Rights Organisations (IFHHRO)
• Israel accused of delaying medical access to injured
• Petition: IDF targets ambulances
• Physicians for Human Rights-Israel Gaza Update 5.1.09: Attacks on medical personnel and serious obstacles to evacuation of wounded within the Gaza Strip Tiamut 22:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

totally disputed

does anybody else find it amusing that we have for the most part gotten along and tried to achieve consensus on such a heated topic, but once a certain editor shows up we get a totally disputed tag? I swear im laughing, not crying. Nableezy (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't me but I was wondering why the initial Hamas rocket attacks are under "Ceasefire ends" but the Timeline and Initial bombardment sections start with Israeli actions. This seems POV in itself. Rmhermen (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this tag. User:Jaakobou has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing. For a recent example see here. There is already an activediscuss and current war tag on this article and, in my opinion, that is sufficient. Many of us have worked hard on this article to achieve consensus and this tag is disrespectful of that effort. Jacob2718 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which editor to which you are refering. V. Joe (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This tag was placed by User:Jaakobou. See this diff. Jacob2718 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you V. Joe (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been unlucky enough to be witness to the mortifying of reason on other wiki pages. It is not my values or ideals, neither my personal agenda that has been at fault when seeing how certain editors have derailed 'due process' in those aforementioned pages. It has been, if anything, the ignoring of 'stronger logistical values'. That, is not happening in this page, and for that my conviction is made stronger. Cryptonio (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In Line with This... (Under reactions)

Hi all, I find that this paragraph is objectionable, and I will explain why.

in line with this, "The Vatican sought to downplay the cardinal's remarks... the Vatican spokesman, Reverend Federico Lombardi, called Cardinal Martino’s choice of words 'inopportune'."

The first way I find this objectionable is prose. Simply put, it is awkwardly phrased.

The second objection I have is that it is, if not strongly POV, it does suggest evidence not on the record.

My proposal is to rewrite this paragraph to something like this. Vatican spokesman Frederico Lombardi called Cardinal Martino's choice of words "inopportune." That way the reader can judge what the Vatican's remarks mean. V. Joe (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. Rabend (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Total of Palestinian civilian dead

I think my wording is better. No estimate of total civilian dead has been made by the MoH. See this revision of the article:

"No source has made an estimate of the total number of civilian dead. 491 is the total of the following reported dead, and does not include civilian non-elderly men."

I think that is better than

"One source claimed at least 380 civilians dead,<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090112/ts_nm/us_palestinians_israel</ref> however other sources claimed 491 dead,"

I showed the ref in the above previous version. Looking at that article it does not say 380, nor does it give a total. It was just discussing the number of women and children dead:

"Figures from Palestinian medics indicate at least 909 people have been killed. The health minister in Gaza's Hamas-run government said close to 400 of those were woman and children."

This article is the source of the current breakdown: http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12514

"RAMALLAH, January 12, 2009 (WAFA)- On the seventeenth day of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, the death toll reached 905 Palestinians, 280 of whom are children and 98 are women, 97 are elderly and 12 medical personnel are among the fatalities. The number of injured mounted to 3860, including 1333 children and 587 women. An estimated 413 are considered critically injured."

The article says it is from the Palestine News Agency - WAFA. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WAFA is saying of 905, 378 are children and women. Something in the vicinity of a third. The two thirds refers to therefore men, 527, who are in turn to be broken down into Hamas militants and male civilians. The IDF's 'over 500' figures earlier cited would identify all men killed as Hamas militants, implying there are no male civilian casualties?Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the IDF estimates don't add up. There aren't that many men who have been killed according to the WAFA numbers. See:

IDF: More than 650 Hamas Terrorists Killed in Gaza, by Maayana Miskin. Jan. 12, 2008.

Paratroopers destroy terrorist tunnel. Jan. 12, 2009. Jerusalem Post.

"Based on intelligence and information obtained by the Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration, the IDF has determined that at least 400 of those killed are known Hamas operatives. The IDF further believes that among the remaining 500, at least half are Hamas operatives."

That is where the 650 number comes from.

As you said; 905 dead minus 378 women and children equals 527 men. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(after Edit conflict) There are several possible answers to the apparent counting problem, here are a few, and I guess the answer is somewhere in the middle.

The IDF claims there are 200 bodies of Hamas militants "hidden" in the Shifa Hospital morgue, bodies Hamas does not allow to be buried as to not lower morale. If this is true, and many of these dead are not counted officially, it can make a big difference.

You assume all Hamas casualties are 18+ men. Hamas has in the past "employed/used" both youngsters and women in fighting, and it's quite possible the IDF counts (correctly or not) some of them as Hamas operatives.

In general, the "fog of war" in a place that probably lost all it's statistic infrastructure (and much of it's communucation infrastructure) is so great, that I doubt anyone can give a semi-based "body count". DGtal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, we can't just "add" numbers, especially from different sources. Just like you said that "the IDF estimates don't add up" someone else could argue that it is "the MOH numbers that don't add up". We should keep both, rather than trying to reconcile them mathematically, and state to the source.--Omrim (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let us just state the numbers and the sources, and let the readers decide. Anything else is original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP vandals are back. Can semi-protection be returned?

Please look at some of the IP edits, and see what I mean. It is hard enough to reach consensus with registered users. There are only so many hours in a day.

Plus who knows how many sockpuppets are among the IPs using them to avoid 3RR. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Attack on UNRWA School

Israel has changed its story yet again, according to the Jerusalem Post:

"We are still sticking by our official position that according to our initial inquiry, the whole thing started when terrorists fired mortar shells from the school compound ," Capt. Ishai David told The Jerusalem Post. "The IDF returned fire to the source, and the unfortunate result was the death of innocent civilians," David said.
-- TOVAH LAZAROFF (2009-01-12). "IDF denies errant shell hit UNRWA school". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2009-01-12.

UNRWA continues to contradict the Israeli account. A news article at antiwar.com ("Israeli Military Changes Stories Yet Again on Gaza School Attack". antiwar.com. 2009-01-11. Retrieved 2009-01-12.) tracks the conflicting accounts and provides additional sources. Can I add this information in the UNRWA School section? NonZionist (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that in the context of this article about the entire conflict, what we have about that incident is more than enough. We can't just list every single news item about it, unless a very dramatic new piece of evidence comes up. Rabend (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, might I suggest adding it to the article on the Al-Fakhura school incident? Tiamut 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment?

Hi, Jaakobou's mentor dropping by. Over at ANI I edit conflicted with Sandstein. Was attempting to suggest a content request for comment on the lead and whether it violates WP:UNDUE. Anyone object to requesting a few more eyes on the matter? Respectfully, Durova 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the process intense solutions, like RfC or mediation etc., are not going to be successful while this is an ongoing high profile event. Personally, I think if we can keep the partisan chatter to a minimum the people here will do a fairly good job of working out their differences. I have a very high level of confidence in the ability of some of the editors here, and a number of them have worked together (or in opposition to eachother) on a number of other articles where basic issues have been resolved. Avruch 23:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli plans for a military option

Proposed addition to article: "The operation had reportedly been in planning since mid 2007, when Ehud Barak was appointed Israel's Minister of Defense, shortly after the Hamas administration had pre-empted and suppressed an attempted American-backed coup by Fatah militants, a full a year before the approximate time that the temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas was signed. The operation is consistent with the objectives and methods advocated in the 1996 "Clean Break" plan authored by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and other prominent neo-conservatives: "reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation", a "new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies", "seiz the strategic initiative ... engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran".
Richard Perle (1996). "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Retrieved 2009-01-12. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Justin Raimondo (2009-01-12). "Gaza Is the Future". antiwar.com. Retrieved 2009-01-12. NonZionist (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The antiwar site is not a reliable source for this subject, and connecting a 12 year old book with a current crisis is original synthesis unless you can find some evidence that it actually inspired some element of the planning or execution of the Israeli operation. Avruch 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian resistance tactics - the tunnel network

• Hamas Tunnel System Rivals Viet Cong's Cu Chi Underground

Where is the broader section discussing the weaponry and tactics being used by Israel and by the Palestinian resistance? Should I just start a section on the tunnel system to put into such a section once its developed? Tiamut 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud" ('Umdat as-Salik, o9.16)

• Articles linked from high traffic sites
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status as of 13 January 2009