Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Legitamacy of PCHR numbers

The world could be perceived in three states. First of all is unquestioned state. That which a child sees, in which bread is bread and wine is wine. The second state is consensus reality, that set of conventions by which we agree that bread is a meal and wine is camaraderie. The third is examined state, that with which our colleagues in the School of Sorcery deal, the interplay of forces which they hold to be the ultimate reality. Yet let us ask ourselves, what lies beyond them all? What is the true state of what we might call hyperreality? The Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/22/world/main4746224.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4746224

"The civilians not only included innocent bystanders, but also Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes, said Ibtissam Zakout, head of the PCHR's research team."

How can numbers which consider Hamas leaders civilians be considered legitamate? How was that a non-combat situation either? By that logic every military strike by Israel was a "non-combat situation" Drsmoo (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've talked about that before. It's in the archives. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we also agreed about a warning neutral wording for encyclopedia readers which might be confused by such an outstanding PCHR civilian and combat definition. Since then, this article improved a lot: the warning was lost but now we have military rabbis engagement sub-section. Israeli troops clearly wanted to kill as much gentile changelings as possible. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you've been away for a while so I should say that user:Factsontheground added the rabbi section yesterday. If you have a problem with it you're free to deal with it. And welcome back. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warm welcome, I missed you too. I guess my point is maybe we should restore the warning regarding PCHR statistics meaning in Disputed Figures section. Does it sound reasonable? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats your own 'warning' on the reliability of their numbers, you cant just say their numbers are unreliable you need a source to do so. Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important that people know that the PCHR figures consider Hamas leaders to be civilians Drsmoo (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

International law considers anybody, including commanders, to be civilians while they are not engaged in hostilities. What you think is important is only important to you. Nableezy (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Being in a war counts as being involved in hostilities. As does launching thousands of rockets. There was alreadya notification in this article previously informing readers of this, and it should return. Drsmoo (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is your own interpretation of international law, one that I am certain that you are not qualified to provide based on the simple fact that you are plain wrong according to those who are qualified to do so. Nableezy (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, combatant status it is disputed by Israel and others. It is also apparently a somewhat arbitrary process.[1] But I think that's an issue that doesn't need to be addressed in the infobox. It can't be a place for dissections like that. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While we're talking about infobox casualties, our article seems to be wrong about that Ukrainian woman. It says that two foreigners were killed, the woman and her child. But she was married to a local doctor, so the child was Palestinian, as much as he was Ukrainian. Although I don't see why a resident foreigner, married to a local, needs special mention anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Never looked into the Ukrainian myself. Special mention is not needed at all ff child has duel citizenship since it is covered. Someone married to a local (I assume she was residing as well) probably doesn't deserve special inclusion either.Cptnono (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dont think special mention is needed at all. Nableezy (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's PCHRs interpretation that Hamas's general during Cast lead was a civilian. If you think that is legitamate please cite the law that states that a general who is coordinating a war is a civilian. 199.79.168.212 (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamas has generals? The source actually says: "Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan, two top Hamas leaders assassinated" Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And read this for the views of people who are actually qualified to say something, not some random wikipedia editor. They are combatants only while taking 'direct participation in hostilities'. Nableezy (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, noone claims reliability. I guess the point is that in the discussion archives there are many links for reliable sources that describe both mentioned persons as members of governance of the Gaza Strip armed forces and their places in the organization. This is why readers who read the first sentence of civilian Wikipedia article are confused. The CBS quote makes the required clarification and singles those two and mention them by name for confusion clarification reason. CBS probably cares about its readers. I agree with Drsmoo, it is important that people know that the PCHR figures include some armed forces members as civilians. This RS backed clarification provided encyclopedic value to this article. I'm sorry it was lost. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the recent edit for the most part. Hamas members (including those with military ties) are in the count. I don't think we need to go into detail about the general but "The PCHR figures for civilian casualties include "Hamas members killed in non-combat situations"" It is kind of similar to the police thing. Israel considers some "civilians" potential combatants or tied to combatants. It looks like PCHR considers that at least mentionable.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with that. The sources that bring this up are on old numbers, and I have yet to find one raising any supposed criticisms of the final tally. Beyond that, we say that the PCHR says x number of civilians died, we are obviously using their definition of a civilian. Also, the UN has now presented those numbers without qualification as to the source. We say that they said x number combatants died. That excludes noncombatants. It doesnt exclude everybody associated with Hamas, it excludes those not taking part in combat situations. The definition the PCHR used is the same that the ICRC uses, the same that AI uses, the same that B'tselem uses, the same that HRW uses. It is the standard definition in international law. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

per talk AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the notice, but I don't think that edit reflects the consensus on the talk page. I also think that it is not NPOV to say that the PCHR "inflated" the civilian count -- it is just their interpretation. So I'm going to spare Nableezy the effor and revert that. I think you should probably discuss anything specific first. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is this your mean side? First time I have seen it, and I am shocked. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I am playing the good cop. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope this fixes NPOV. Please don't arrest me, Mr. officer :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please try to get consensus for edits you know will be disputed? Please? I explained my objections above, could you at least try to answer them instead of just saying the completely meaningless 'per talk'? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, we need a consensus. Could you explain your objection to the edit, so I could improve it? Thank you. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I already did, up above in a comment dated 06:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC). Nableezy (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can explain Nableezy's objection. He thinks that PCHR's definitions are standard for the field and thus do not require our expansion. I think he would probably further say that, if anything, the IDF is the one with the unusual practice of classifying those figures as combatants. And that's what we should mention, if anything. I have the sense that he might also say something was "retarded" but I'm not 100% on that. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, JGGardiner, I see what you mean. Somehow if PCHR definitions would be standard for the field, we would not see neutral CBS expansion requirement and mentioning civilian names. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you need to stop putting in the same disputed edit over and over. Nableezy (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I've learned a lot of Wikipedia rules from you. Really appreciate your opinion. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you discuss your changes as much as I do and publish your diffs :). You also need to reach consensous. I know it's a beginning of new day in Chicago, so good morning. Missed you, man. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada, if you insist on keeping this so called clarification then you cannot argue against further detail on the numbers of the IDF and the criticism of it. Nableezy (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for criticism, though maybe some belong to international law section. I'm not really sure what directly engaged in hostilities means. Does it mean that commanding officers which use communication equipment instead of guns considered civilians? Still Said Siam was killed in rented home, according to reliable sources AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly would the IDF know this? Wodge (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean how exactly would the IDF know that they were using communications equipment to direct hositilities if that's what they were doing at the time the IDF blew them up? Wodge (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what IDF knew :) I guess the point is that in the discussion archives there are many links for reliable sources that describe both mentioned persons as members of governance of the Gaza Strip armed forces and their places in the organization. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If they are not taking part in hostilities they are classed as cilivians. Wodge (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine that commanding officers of armed forces would be idle when enemy offensive is occurring. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agada the edit you made is nonsense. You cannot determine the innocence of somebody, kindly self-revert. Nableezy (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you insist on qualifying the PCHR numbers you have to include both sides, you cannot just say I want to disparage the numbers and thats it. Nableezy (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, innocence is in CBS reliable source, quoted as is, because of my broken English :) Why do you object to this wording? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I just changed it, the source says it includes members of Hamas killed in non-combat situations and that is what the article says now. Nableezy (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And if you didnt notice, hard to believe because it is in the same sentence, the source also says 'along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes' That should be in there as well if you are going to explicitly mention the names. Nableezy (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors noted in archives that IAF bomb on your head is indeed very non-combat situation. Still neutral CBS quote is The civilians not only included innocent bystanders. And again Said Siam was killed in rented home, according to reliable sources. I don't want any confusion. Hope you don't object. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I feel kick and ban buttons singing danger danger - high voltage. I don't want to be trigger happy so late at night :) We'll continue this discussion tomorrow. Send my regards to Windy City. Is hockey season over already? AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Whats your point on 'rented' home? And why do you keep saying 'neutral' CBS? And why do you want to keep out 'killed with their relatives in their homes'? It is in the exact same sentence you keep citing. There is no confusion in that sentence. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

POVing, probably. I think he wants 'innocent bystanders' so that it contrasts Hamas members who presumably are guilty at all times. Wodge (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wodge, is this your understanding of assume good faith WP:Etiquette rule? It's custom to strike errors. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is a fundamental rule of wikipedia. Your use of the word 'innocent' is quite clearly POV. Wodge (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia rules you should assume good faith of other editors. This part needs striking. Please see WP:Etiquette.
• Please read the CBS source, I incorporated in this article direct quote from neutral/secondary reliable source. So no NPOV issue what so ever.

It's human to err. Hope you see what I mean, Wodge. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The sentence you inserted looked like your own wording. So clearly NPOV.

2. Plagiarism is not allowed either. You can't cut and paste stuff without clearly labeling it as a quote.

3. I might have assumed good faith the first you made the change but you attempted to insert it over and over again even though you've been told repeatedly why it's not necessary. Wodge (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand there are two issues here:

• CBS notes civilian count "not only included innocent bystanders" and names two leaders.
• PCHR notes "non-combat situations" and "massive bombings of homes"

Could we agree on that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the article already mentions all that. Your additional quotes are not necessary. Wodge (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the CBS article says non-combat situations and killed with their families in massive bombing of their homes. It is the very same sentence as what you keep posting, so I find it hard to AGF that you are innocently overlooking that. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF? Wodge (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand what is the Wikipedia way to reflect the facts in reliable source report. Hoped this is was good enough. AGF? :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No it was not. Tell me exactly what is wrong with the current wording. Wodge, AGF=Assume Good Faith. Nableezy (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the phrase "innocent bystanders" is POV and shouldn't be included even if it from CBS. Wodge (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The facts of dispute is more clear now both on police officers and Hamas leaders. I still don't like current wording since it's more about accusations and less about facts as-is as brought by reliable sources. Let's be constructive and find some fair compromise for wording. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Explain exactly what is wrong with the wording. Nableezy (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the sources and it looks that the Disputed Figures sub-section (and me) is out of date. The name list was published by PCHR and analyzed. Enough of accusations on both sides. Maybe we could trim the Disputed Figures all together, so it will not grow as wild as Laos jungle. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide specifics. I do think it needs to be trimmed (I dont think the Corriere info needs to be mentioned at all anymore now that we have close to official numbers from each side) but I dont know what it is that you want to remove. Nableezy (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree on Corriere in particular. Generally I would trim maybe the whole sub-section branch all together: accusations/legal stuff also (or alternatively move relevant info/quotes to international law). It is silly to dispute when detailed name list of casualties is available. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be something there about the difference between the PCHR and IDF figures, though? Wodge (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, something should be up soon enough, as in an a greater authoritative investigation about the figures. That the IDF's figures on Palestinians are included, makes no sense whatsoever, yet no need to take it further at this time, after all, that italian doctor's allegations on figures was so damaging. Cryptonio (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A file picture dated 15 September 2007 shows senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan (L) inspecting Hamas militants as they participate in a training exercise at an undisclosed location in the northern Gaza Strip. Does he look very civilian or "not taking part in hostilities"? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, he has to be taking part in these hostilities Nableezy (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are links in the archives of reliable sources describing Nizar Rayan as commander of northern Gaza Strip during these hostilities. Go figure it ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to add "such as Nizar Rayan and Said Siam" to PCHR civilian classification. I believe RS backed addition clarifies the dispute and provides encyclopedic value. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add those specific names then also include what the RSs say how they died, namely that they were bombed in their homes with their families. You cant just add the information that you like. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rayan case is shocking, B'Tselem cried about civilian loss.[2]. Other RS (New York Daily News) noted that Rayan had "sacrificed his children - in a vain attempt to protect a weapons cache beneath his home.[3]. Rayan sent his young son to die on a suicide mission back in 2001 - surrounded himself with human shields comprised of members of his own family, most of whom perished when an Israel F-16 dropped a bomb on his home in Jabaliyah.[4]. From other hand Said Seyam was not killed in his home at all. Bottom line both leaders have Wikipedia notability and articles, so mentioning names and wiki-links would be enough. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not enough, if you want to bring up these two specifically, bring up the specifics. Your point about rented vs owned home is irrelevant, it was his home even if he did not own it. And the NY Daily news, please, lets try to keep the tabloids to a minimum. Nableezy (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could describe Rayan using human shields comprised of members of his own family. From other hand Said Seyam was surrounded by body guards, his family home was not bombed. I think this article is bloated as-is, mentioning names and wiki links would provide the information about "non-combat" situation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a judgment you make on 'human shields', one that is not accepted by most sources. The relevant information to the 'non-combat' issue is that they were attacked in their homes. If you want to bring up the example of 2 specifics of what is already said in the article, 'members of Hamas killed in non-combat situations' then provide the specifics as to why they were classified as being in 'non-combat' situations. You cannot just pick and choose the information to use, it leaves an incomplete account that is used to only highlight one side of the issue. If you want to give the specific names of those two, then you need to also include the relevant information as to why they were classified as non-combat. Nableezy (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is Al Jazeera image of Rayan, published during this conflict. I just say, let's mention leaders names and let the reader draw moral conclusions. Let's state the facts as-is. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'facts as-is' are that both men were killed in their homes with their families. It already says 'Hamas members', the point is 'in non-combat situations'. If you want the names, put the situation as well, you can't expand on one point and completely ignore the rest. Nableezy (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

While you continue to argue about circumstances, disregarding Seyam's case, you somehow miss the point why both mentioned together by CBS: the civilian classification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And you missed the point that civilian deaths are defined as those killed while not engaged in hostilities, or non-combatants. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me disagree with you. Hamas as organization publicly took responsability for rocket love fest. So Hamas security personal/armed forces members did take part in hostilities, no one denies it. Both mentioned persons had some "dudes with guns" under their command. I try to imagine Nizar convert to pacifism night before his home was bombed or Said deserting his role in Executive Force in Gaza when he heard jets overhead. It is still hard to imagine. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep missing the 'while not engaged in hostilities', that they previously were engaged in hostilities does not make engaged in hostilities when they were killed. But that is not the important part. We have a sentence that says the 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' You want to add specifics to the Hamas members part but not include that they were killed in non-combat situations. Even the CBS source you keep bringing up, after mentioning the names, in the very next sentence says they were killed in their homes with their families. You cannot just highlight the information that suits you, you want to expand on that sentence then fine, but you cannot include just one half of the story. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

for interest, I think even Israel’s High Court of Justice in their 'The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Gov’t of Israel et al' ruling declined to recognise 'unlawful combatant' as a third category of person in addition to the standard 'combatant' and 'civilian' categories of international law. Nor did they recognise members of Hamas etc as combatants as they don't meet the legal criteria. Even the HCJ seem to treat 'terrorists' as civilians albeit civilians who lose their immunity from attack while they are engaged in hostilities.

• "The basic approach is thus as follows: a civilian – that is, a person who does not fall into the category of combatant – must refrain from directly participating in hostilities (see FLECK, at p. 210). A civilian who violates that law and commits acts of combat does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy – during that time – the protection granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war. True, his status is that of a civilian, and he does not lose that status while he is directly participating in hostilities. However, he is a civilian performing the function of a combatant. As long as he performs that function, he is subject to the risks which that function entails and ceases to enjoy the protection granted to a civilian from attack".

Have a look [5]. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for interesting reading material, still somehow I'm not sure it is relevant to this particular discussion. Do you say those two persons took part in hostilities before this conflict, but resigned as Israel started offensive? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted it because I found it very surprising indeed...to such an extent that I can hardly believe what I read i.e. even when taking a direct part in hostilities a Hamas person has the legal status of civilian according to Israel’s High Court of Justice. I guess my point was that if that is what the HCJ think then maybe it's not so surprising or controversial that parties like PCHR count Hamas people as civilians when they aren't taking a direct part in hostilities at the time they were killed. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

..maybe this is why B'Tselem record the statistics the way they do i.e. "Palestinians employing potentially lethal force (guns, rockets, explosives, Molotov cocktails) are listed as having participated in hostilities at the time they were killed" and refute CAMERA's militants aren't civilians statements...see B'tselem#Critical_commentary_and_response.....maybe it's all beginning to make sense...seems unlikely. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be frank with you: I do not have enough background to grasp all the legal technicalities. Do you say that HCJ would rule that all Hamas members were civilians? Had Hamas government took direct part in hostilities during this conflict? Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. They seem to have ruled (let's use Hamas as an example) that

• they aren't "combatants" from a legal perspective at any time.
• they are "civilians" at all times from a legal perspective even when taking direct part in hostilities
• while taking part in hostilities they lose their right to protection as civilians (but keep their legal status as civilians) and can be attacked (although they seem to have ruled that the actual legality of a 'targeted killing' depends on the specific circumstances..blah blah blah..).

So yes, it seems that the HCJ ruled that all Hamas members are civilians at all times. Amazing. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, this is really interesting. I read the sources carefully. HCJ takes an important role in balancing government and army policy in questions like torture, human shields, targeted killing and collective punishment. To tell you the truth I've learned about CAMERA from you, though, can not say they play an important and notable role in this conflict. The HCJ ruling in question is from 2005, back then Hamas boycotted Palestinian democratic process, since than many things had changed. Democratically elected Hamas government kind of rules in Gaza and kind of imports factory made weapon and kind of fires rockets. Do you think PCHR believes that current Hamas government did not take direct part in hostilities during this conflict? Thank you again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there has been another HCJ ruling since then, I don't know (seems unlikely). I don't know what the PCHR actually believes but what I do see now is that there is consistency between the HCJ ruling on 2 kinds of civilian (protected vs unprotected), B'Tselem's classification of 2 kinds of Palestinian casualty (civilian vs 'participating in hostilities at the time') and the PCHR classifying militants as civilians when they are killed while not taking a direct part in hostilities. All 3 seem to be using the same (or at least very similar) classifications, standard civilian vs someone physically engaged in hostilities at the time (i.e. actually firing a rocket etc). It seems to me that the PCHR's classification of a Hamas guy killed at home as a civilian who is not physically engaged in hostilities is the same classification that both B'Tselem and the HCJ would assign simply because he wasn't actually engaged in hostilities/commiting acts of combat at that precise time. It seems counter-intuitive because he could be sending messages to direct operations from home...I assume 'directly participating in hostilities' is defined legally somewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I think I understand what you're saying. Still, B'Tselem does not refer to Nizar Rayan as civilian in their press release, it looks that you discuss those who are not part of armed forces and yet take weapon and commit acts of violence. Do you say that members of armed forces could be considered civilians? Do Hamas has armed forces at all? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth reading the whole HCJ ruling. Yes, members of irregular armed forces (not armies with uniforms etc) are considered as civilians (legally). There are combatants and civilians under international law (and Israeli law). Both of those kinds of people have protection under the law. If you call a Hamas guy a combatant he would have the legal privileges/protection that combatants are entitled to without having any of the legal responsibilities that go with being a combatant. If you call him a civilian he has the legal privileges/protection that civilians are entitled to but while he is engaged in hostilities he can be attacked as a military target. And 'engaged in hostilities' is defined in the report amd it doesn't include sitting at home. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't grasp this concrete ruling in full, still it looks pretty regular and outdated to me. There is a question of "non-state actor", still I personally would not call security minister as "irregular". In the context of "War on Hamas" Israeli legal sources clearly classify mentioned leaders as combatants, there are sources in the article. Still charity wing Hamas members were not considered combatants. Do you object "such as ..." addition based on neutral CBS to clarify the dispute? Maybe alternatively we could say "with military ties". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Toys with small pieces, such as these Lego elements are required by law to have warnings about choking hazards in some countries.

Agada, you keep missing the point. Sean gave an explanation as to the actual real world issue, which though it may be enlightening is not the point. In the article, we have a line that says 'the PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' You want to expand on the Hamas members part of the line by adding specific members. If you want to do that, also expand on the 'killed in non-combat situations', which as the CBS source you keep bringing says, in the very next sentence, 'killed in massive bombings in their homes with their families.' You cannot just tell one side of the story. If you want to expand further you need to explain both parts of the story, the individual names and the individual circumstances. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, "non-combat situation" should be clearly quoted in the article, since it is non-fact and actually a PCHR opinion. There is a dispute about such Israeli attacks legality and legitimacy.

• One reliable NGO says: Israeli security sources reported that the house was also used as an arms cache, a communications headquarters and concealed a tunnel opening. Prior to striking Rayyan's house the IDF warned his family about the imminent attack and urged them to evacuate the place, but they refused to do so hopping that the underground shelter (loaded with arms and ammunitions) would eventually protect them. Prior to the attack the Israeli army held deliberations regarding the legality of striking homes used as weapons storages when sufficient warning is given to the residents. It has been decided that this falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate. [6]
• Another reliable NGO says: Even if the army spokesperson's statement is accurate, the large toll of civilian lives renders the attack a grave breach of international humanitarian law. In the current situation in the Gaza Strip, it is hard to think of a definite military advantage that could have been achieved by bombing the house and killing Rayan, that can justify the killing of 13 women and children. [7]

This is not the point of my argument. The point is PCHR classification of "military ties" leaders. I'm not really sure why we can not add "such as ...", following neutral CBS. Charity wing Hamas members were not disputed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, no, there is no question of 'non-state actors', 'bad guys', 'terrorists' etc there are just 'civilians' and 'combatants'. 'Civilians' may or may not be engaged in hostilities. The line that says 'the PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations' makes it clear how the PCHR classified the casualties. An RS might call someone like Said Siam a combatant for political/bad reporting reasons but that does not make them a combatant (legally) anymore than calling someone a terrorist makes them a terrorist. It would need to be attributed to the source. I don't understand what purpose is served/value is added by naming specific people because the controling factor seems to be whether the person was actually firing a rocket etc at the time of their death. Whether or not they were a senior Hamas member or a gardener is irrelevant. It's what the were doing at the time that matters. Perhaps it is the 'non-combat situations' that is causing trouble. Would it help to change that wording or clarify what a non-combat/combat situation is or mention that the civilian count included 'targeted killings of people not engaged on hostilities at the time' or something along those lines assuming there's an RS somewhere that uses that language ? I agree with Nableezy here. If you want to include names then it's better to include the context for those people i.e. targeted killing. Maybe there is a basic misunderstanding here that counting senior Hamas people as civilians when they're killed via targeted killing while not engaged in hostilities in someway de-values the PCHR figures. It doesn't. It might be confusing but it's what the ICRC etc would do. What is unusual, non-standard and notable is that some Israeli sources use classifications that are inconsistent everyone else's including with their own HCJ.

Palestinians are not allowed to have a 'military' so 'military ties' wouldn't make sense. If there were a Palestinian military those guys would be 'combatants'. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Sean, Nableezy. My mistakes, the infoboxes should burn in hell!!! This is not a military conflict, after all. Those rockets are toys and really fun. The "strength" of 20.000, according to this article are not a real army, they are actually civilians, pretty much like rest 1.5 million. So what difference does it make that Rayan was playing with guns while dressed in a "toy military" uniform, no question of classification at all. Sean, I still seriously I do not agree on "allowed", there was UN ruling from November 1947. Palestinians do have a right! It is so amazing, I did not believe it myself initially, maybe both of you should read it carefully. Palestinians are real after all, no IOF backed by F-16 could change it! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean Agada. Palestinians are not allowed to have a 'military' i.e. army/airforce/navy It's covered by the interim accords See article 14 for example and the details in annex 1. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess my point is that back when in the area of Big Bang (UN ruling) there were no "interim accords" or IOF F-16s and these days Hamas government is not obliged legally by "interim accords" and import factory made weapon from abroad and manufacture some domestically. Accords are important, but not really relevant. Do you object "such as ..." addition? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to it. I just don't understand what purpose it serves. I'm not a big fan of information without context or purpose. Regarding your comment above "non-combat situation" should be clearly quoted in the article, since it is non-fact and actually a PCHR opinion. Attributing the non-combat situation assessment like in the CBS article sounds sensible. If you wanted to put all of the information from the CBS source in the article (slightly reworded) I wouldn't object. I mean this stuff "such as Said Siam and Nizar Rayan..->...PCHR's research team". Sean.hoyland - talk 10:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. Unless you include the specific circumstances dont include the specific names. If you want to include both then I am fine with that. But not just one side of a story. Nableezy (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot keep adding language like 'However, CBS noted that PCHR civilian count "not only included innocent bystanders" but also Hamas members such as Nizar Rayan and Said Seyam. According to PCHR research team head, top leaders were "assassinated, along with their relatives, in massive bombings of homes", thus in "non-combat situations".' For one thing, the 'however' is you making an assumption that CBS uses this information to dispute the figures. Also, 'CBS noted' that they were killed in massive bombings of their homes, not just the 'PCHR research team'. And even if 'innocent bystanders' is directly taken from the source, it is not needed in the article. We already say that 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations.' We do not make judgments on anybody's innocence. If you want to expand on the sentence, the way I would find acceptable would be something like this: 'The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in non-combat situations, such as Nizar Ryan and Said Seyam who were killed with their families in bombings of their homes.' Nableezy (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I hoped I followed the agreement lines and told both sides of the story. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding of the CBS source is that "non-combat situations" attributed to PCHR research team head. From explanations in this discussion, the situation is a part of the reasons for classification. Do you want to propose alternative wording? Let's be constructive and move on. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I just gave an 'alternate wording' Nableezy (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I can not say I love proposed by you wording since it mixes opinions and facts. Opinions should be clearly quoted and attributed. Let me demonstrate how the same event could be described:

• PCHR: "massive bombing of homes with families"
• IDF: "pin point attacks on military infrastructure, taking all measures to warn civilians"

Both are opinions and I personally can not fully agree or disagree with either of them. I could live without opinions at all and propose factually NPOV: PCHR civilian count included officials with military ties. I hope you do agree on "military conflict" framework of this article. Could you live with that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, bombings of their homes is not an opinion, and again what you want to put in is only one side of the story. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

break

The nature of yin-yang:
(*) Yin-yang are opposing
(*) Yin-yang are rooted together
(*) Yin yang transform each other
(*) Yin-yang are balanced

I think Agada has highlighted the root cause of this issue which is the ambiguity of the terms. Or rather it's the ambiguity of whether someone is taking 'a direct part in the hostilities'. Even if you attribute terms to PCHR via something like 'killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations' it will still be ambiguous and people may want to expand the sentence, challenge it etc etc. Under Israeli law+their novel interpretation of IHL it seems that civilians who willingly choose to be 'human shields' to protect people taking a direct part in the hostilities are also taking a direct part and can be attacked. Similarly a guy driving a truck delivering ammunition to the place where it will be used in hostilities is taking a direct part and can be attacked. The truck itself with the ammunition is an uncontroversial military target though.

...and the scope for spin, ambiguous or context-free media reporting, confusion over casualty counts and terminology is endless. So, maybe it would be better to say something like

The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations, such as Nizar Ryan and Said Seyam who were killed with their families in bombings of their homes. (cite) The IDF regard those particular incidents as attacks against military infrastructure and stated that they had advised residents to evacuate prior to the attacks. (cite)

Having said that, I still don't understand why we are singling out these 2 guys/incidents though. Just because CBS has doesn't mean we should. They're special cases and don't effect the statistics much unlike the policemen part later on. What is the objective here ? Surely we just need to point out that the PCHR and the IDF count casualties differently, briefly say why and describe the norm ? How about something like below....or just delete the whole article apart from the picture of the old lady.

The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[40] Israel does not count such casualties as civilians and regards "anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas" as "a valid target" according to a Israeli Defence Forces spokesman. Israel's definition of a combatant is broader than any other Western democracy according to Philippe Sands, Professor of International Law at University College London. Under international law, combatants include only those "directly engaged in hostilities" although there are differences in the interpretation of "directly engaged in hostilities".[205] (cite the HCJ ruling..hmmm..primary source).

Sean.hoyland - talk 11:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That is already explained in the article in the intl law section. And I also see no point to singling out these two. Nableezy (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see that. The reason I suggested putting it here is because we've already got "Under international law, combatants include only those directly engaged in hostilities.[205]". If that stays we need to say how the IDF perspective differs from that. So perhaps the solution is simply to say

The PCHR civilian count included Hamas members killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations.[40] Israel does not count such casualties as civilians. (see International law section for details) removing the 'Under international law,..' part or something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, on 'assessment'. Indeed 'Under international law,..' looks kind of silly in Hamas members context. It's still valid for civil police classification dispute, so the source definitely stays, couple of sentences later. Not sure we need 'Israel does not count ...' addition, looks kind of obvious and redundant. If nobody objects I'm going to implement those yin-yang accords, maybe tomorrow. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The police issue is another issue, the 'under international law ...' was specifically about counting Hamas members not engaged in hostilities at the time of their killing. So I object to the removal of that sentence in that context. Nableezy (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I clearly respect you minority (on this question) opinion. To me this sentence looks like WP:SYNTH, which is in context of civil police and kind of tries to argue Hamas direct engaging in hostilities, which is WP:UNDUE. Kind of against "don't edit WP just to make your point" rule. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The source brought by Sceptic clearly quotes that PCHR disputes civilian police as "not directly engaged" and not Hamas. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the 'Under international law,..', because of reasons above, maybe tomorrow. Seems like rough consensus on this one. Let me know if anyone still objects. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no synth in that sentence, no conclusion that any one source does not draw is made. And the PCHR also included these people, they included them in 'not directly engaged'. Nableezy (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean PCHR included Hamas leaders in "not directly engaged". In which source? If we combine PCHR and BBC then we get Hamas leaders not directly engaged, This is synth, since none of the sources draws this conclusion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't combining anything. Nableezy (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No source for making "International law ..." relevant in Hamas context. If we ain't combining (coupling), let's remove this sentence. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the issue is pretty clear, if politicians or public services could be considered 'combatants' then why in a state of war would not every civlian which contributes to their country be considered a 'combatant'. Etither every civilian in Gasa is a combatant or only armed militatns are- there is no logic in going half way. If Knesset members were killed at home by rockets they would be considered civilians casualties- if members of the US senate died in a bomb attack they would be considered civilian casualties- why then is it not the same for unarmed politicians or members of public services?86.140.120.102 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Anon

Hey anon. Thank you for joining this discussion. Generally I think it would improve discussion if you register to Wikipedia. I'm not sure that it's NPOV to say that all 1.5 millions living in Gaza are civilians or all 1.5 millions are combatants. Personally I would not think we would like to get there. Do you propose a change or just want a chat? Keep well in any way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mess with casualties' figures according to IDF

There is a mess there, I would like to correct. Figures according to IDF are divided, for reasons I cannot comprehend between two paragraphs. 1. According to first paragraph: An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[10] The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[10] The IDF listed 162 Palestinians as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] Third sentence is incorrect citing the source. [10] says that According to the IDF, 162 additional names of men killed during the operation "have not been yet attributed to any organization." (Emphasis by me, Sceptic). I suggest the third sentence is corrected as following: The IDF listed 162 Palestinian men as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] This correction is consistent with previous preliminary casualties' report, published on Feb. 15, 2009, in JPost: The 320 names yet to be classified are all men; the IDF has yet complete its identification work in these cases, but estimates that two-thirds of them were terror operatives. (Emphasis by me, Sceptic) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 2. Second paragraph reads that The IDF stated that they have identified 91 women, 189 were children under the age of 15, 21 elderly men, six UNRWA workers, and two medical workers.[10] This is a mistake. [10] does not say this. This sentence is taken from Haaretz, published on March 25, 2009: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073770.html It is important to notice that Haaretz made this publication day before an official statement from IDF spokesperson. I have no idea where did Haaretz get their figures from and I suggest this sentence will be removed. 3. Instead the latter, I recommend going back to [10], which is consistent with the official statement from IDF spokesperson from March 26, 2009: A total of 295 Palestinian non-combatants died during the operation - 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women [10]. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727552054&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Moreover, I strongly suggest merging this sentence with the three from first paragraph. The entire section should be like this: An IDF report on March 26, 2009 listed 1,166 Palestinian fatalities, of which 295 were identified as civilians.[10] According to IDF, out of 295 Palestinian non-combatants, there are 89 under the age of 16 and 49 women [10]. The IDF report stated that at least 709 of the deaths were members of a militant organization, including police.[10] The IDF listed 162 Palestinian men as "unaffiliated," meaning that they have yet to determine if those Palestinians were affiliated with a militant group.[10] Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one reacts, I guess i will incorporate my suggestion in the article during the weekend. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good suggestion, go for it is my reaction.--KMA "HF" N (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Unless anyone has anything to add, this section can be archived. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not yet. There is another piece of information I want to include.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Women count included at least two women who tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Feb 15, 2009. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, are you proposing adding that to the article ? i.e. that according to someone, I assume it's the IDF via the CLA, the IDF killed 2 female suicide bombers who the PCHR counted as civilians ? That seems like an extraordinary claim. Has it been reported in non-Israeli press ? Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Guess you misunderstood a bit. IDF (via the CLA, nevermind) say that in the IDF count of 49 Palestinian women fatalities, 2 terrorist females included. There is no way to check it, cause IDF did not make the list public. We cannot check if those females were included in the PCHR report either, cause no names are provided by IDF. The fact that there were female suicide bombers is documented in the IDF spokesperson site and is reported indirectly here: In an unrelated investigation, it was found that in a similar incident, a woman suspected of being a suicide bomber approached IDF troops, who opened fired at her after repeatedly trying to stop her from advancing. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238409229712&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull The latter was reprinted btw by other sources including this one. http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/69413/-idf-damning-cast-lead-accounts-false.html. To sum it up, all I am saying, and I suggest to include it, is that according to IDF, its list of 49 women killed include 2 terrorist females. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no further objections, so I'm making an editing in the article. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess this belongs to the disputed figures subsection:

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done. The group's Hamdi Shaqoura told Reuters the centre took a long time and employed great efforts to research the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed. He further assured that the fatalities list does not include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural causes, despite some suggestions. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Thu Mar 26, 2009. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This section can be archived.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

drive by shootings and reprisal kneecappings

Agada keeps tagging the article for neutrality/factual accuracy/weasel word problems probably for good reason and Cryptonio keeps reverting because driveby tagging without going to talk isn't allowed. They are likely to both be right. What to do ? Do we need the tag ? If so we need to spell out what they are. Okay, I'll start us off by simply making something up. hmmmm....the article is
a) clearly biased towards Israel because it doesn't mention that bombing started at 11.30am in the lead which was obviously designed to cause maximum civilian casualties/terror
and also b) clearly biased towards Hamas because it doesn't mention that bombing started at 11.30am in the lead which was designed to ensure that civilians had the best opportunity to see what was happening so that they could avoid getting injured while Israel targeted their oppressors.
Carry on. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing inherently wrong with incessant tagging. The point is to draw attention to things so that they can be talked about, and, well, here we are- aren't we? The Squicks (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Tagging without talk is not allowed. Doing so on a page with discretionary sanctions in place is unwise. From NPOV Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Missed you all dudes, especially Cryptonio :) There is definite improvement but frankly this article is not FA quality yet. We Shall Overcome, eventually, for sure. I still think that we should encourage editors to improve this article. Let me know if you disagree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this section is here now and you have added a comment I think you automatically evade WP:DRIVEBY. That's what happens when you're civil. I'm in favour of the tag being there too for the time being as there clearly are issues e.g. Dorit Beinisch hasn't got people to change international law and counting casualties yet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually remove them for aestheticism reasons, pivoting off Agada's 'we should not be denied' dementia. But surely I wouldn't revert Sean. Cryptonio (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean is kind of modern avatar of Titan who stole fire from Zeus and gave it to mortals. And poor me, I had to look up meaning of dementia word. This fact kind of proves your point, Cryptonio ;) Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drones

We don't seem to have any mention of the unmanned drones/UAV that were (and are) used extensively in Gaza in the article anymore. They seem notable enough for a brief mention given that they account for quite a lot of the casualties including the cadets (e.g. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/garlasco_li which is also on the HRW site because the authors consult for them). Anyone fancy adding something ? After all apparently "No weapon better symbolizes Israel's indirect occupation of the Gaza Strip"...okay, just kidding...it's from HRW not me. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't even need to be in casualties. It is a notable weapon with increased use. If I recall correctly, Israel having drones with rockets wasn't officially verified until this conflict or something interesting like that.Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We have link to IDF Youtube site with some drone footages. I and I just bought a huge LCD TV, great disappointment, drone footage not available in HD resolution. And sound - not even stereo. :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is valuable to the article unless you provide a new section that details weapons and methods of warfare from both sides. BTW, a side remark, for the sake of discussion and not for the sake of article: HRW expert say that "The Israeli blockade of Gaza, tightened in mid-2007 after Hamas took over Palestinian Authority institutions, has created immense hardships on Gaza's civilian population. And just as Israel's control of Gaza's borders allows it to dictate from a safe distance what Gazans can eat, whether they can turn on their lights and what kinds of medical treatment are available to them, drones give Israel the ability to carry out targeted attacks without having to risk "boots on the ground." However, he fails to mention certain things that put this in the proper context. First, Israeli control of Gaza's waters and airspace is accordingly with agreements reached in Oslo accords. Even if Gaza became an independent sovereign state, it is still bound to its prior agreements with Israel respecting Israeli security control, until such agreements revisited. Furthermore, following the disengagement, Israel signed the Crossings Agreement with PA. After the takeover, Hamas announced that it is not committed to any of the agreements between Israel and PA including the latter. Second, Gaza has been unstoppably attacking Israel with rockets, before and after the withdrawal in 2005, before and after the Hamas takeover. The rocketings are acts of war, giving Israel the right to engage in acts of war as self defense. The blockade is a legitimate means of warfare, so long as it abides by the general humanitarian rules of blockades.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is really relevant to anything. It seems like a small tidbit or factoid rather than real notable information. And where is the news coverage of the issue? (Not that I have anything at all against the users for bringing it up). The Squicks (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually think a weaponry section would be fantastic. Although some people looks at this conflict as a horrible injustice to human rights (I actually do understand and agree to some extent) this article is also covering a military conflict and should be treated as so when appropriate. Unfortunately, those evil bastards in the media (kidding) have only written about how the weapons kill kids.Cptnono (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good. Can you pick up the glove? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant and valuable to the article in the same way that the weapons used by Palestinians are relevant and valuable to the article isn't it ? The article deals quite extensively with the weapons used by armed Palestinian groups, rockets and mortars. If the Palestinians were using drones would they be relevant and valuable to the article ? Drones were (and are) one of the key components in this conflict both in terms of surveillance/target selection and for the attacks themselves in some cases. JPost noted just before the conflict "It plays a vital role in IDF operations in the Gaza Strip". They've been used in attacks on civilian and humanitarian/medical targets according to several reports. They play a key role in propaganda/hasbara efforts. They appear quite frequently in media reports outside Israel. They're used in targeted killing which is one of the reasons cited by armed Palestinian groups to justify rocket and mortar attacks. Here's some refs.

• Quite a nice overview of IDF tactics in Gaza which may be useful in general. Cptnono may like it.
• Guardian article
• The Nation/HRW article already mentioned
• The IDF talking about their central role in operations
• Here's a BBC piece about the weapon
• Here's a BBC piece about it's post-ceasefire use. This caught my interest by the way because it's an example of where the IDF would probably count the casualties as combatants where others would count them as non-combatants.

I realise that military censorship prevents the Israeli media from talking about attacks by drones but it seems rather odd not to even mention them in this article given their important role and the consequences that follow from their use. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What the hell? Drunky opens his mouth and you guys ask me to put it where my money is? :) Wanted to mention that Aviation Week has some great info but it will come up with some of the disputes we have with some human rights sources (RS enough but still needs to be used with caution). A really good source to work from and find googlable terms, though, so great find. Are there any bullet points that really jump out? If so, is there a way to work it into sections already in the template we currently have or is a new section better?Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the bullet point is 'drones are good' or 'drones are bad'...one of those 2. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Drones are drones just like tank shells are tank shells. Realistically it is a tool in a war and is designed to kill. Any ethical concerns regarding that aside, any badness or goodness is at the discretion of the operator. I prefer poop as a munition.Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed figures subsection

Boy Genuis promised me that after this noone will care that I dodged my six month service obligation...

There are several additions I think appropriate to the Disputed figures subsection. §1 Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas. In the official statement, IDF made clear that Israel regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009. Israeli Institute for National Security Studies adds further that the civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police are part of the military establishment, as it is under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target. http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2654. The PCHR representative argued however that Israel wrongly classified 255 "noncombatant" police officers killed at the outset of the war as militants, http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html explaining that International Law regards policemen who are not engaged in fighting as non-combatants or civilians. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009

§2 IDF claimed that nine Palestinians medics reported to have been killed were in fact part of the Hamas medical staff that fought against IDF troops during the ground offensive; colonel Moshe Levi compared them to 'combat medics incorporated in the IDF in the sense that they are soldiers.' http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. One of the medics is Anas Naim, the nephew of Hamas Health Minister Bassem Naim (#519 in PCHR list), reported to have been killed on January 4 in the Gaza City. The IDF, however, produced photograph of Naim posing with a Kalashnikov assault rifle that had been posted on a Hamas Web site. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

§3 The PCHR's representative Hamdi Shaqoura reaffirmed on March 26 its own figures, saying that extensive investigation and cross-checking was done in researching the numbers and identities of Palestinians killed; he further assured that the fatalities list does not include deaths caused by "internal events" or natural causes, despite suggestions from some Israeli security organizations. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Thu Mar 26, 2009

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Posing with a weapon doesnt mean much, for us here in the states we remember George W in fighter pilot garb announcing that the Iraq War was over. The first part, we should say that Israel considers the police to be legitimate targets (for some reason I thought we did say that), but the from all that I have read most nearly everybody else question the designation. But if there is info missing on the IDF perspective that should certainly be added, but it should not take precedence over what outside observers have said. I think we need to segregate what the Palestinians say, what the Israelis say, and then separately what outside experts say. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The police thing is a perfect example of the problems with this article. News sources have covered humnaitarian issues more than military tactics and reasoning. Attacking the police could be in several other sections of this article since the IDF did consider it a valid target. Like everything else, it has been turned into another way Gazans were the victims. I would love to blame other editors but realistically we are going off RS and more news sources cover what sells (dead babies). Also, too many multiple mentions of anything annoys me due to bloating the article so I guess I am just venting.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, we will leave Anas Naim alone. Still, it is important to note that IDF claims nine Palestinians medics reported to have been killed were in fact part of the Hamas medical staff that fought against IDF troops during the ground offensive; colonel Moshe Levi compared them to 'combat medics incorporated in the IDF in the sense that they are soldiers.' This implies btw that classifying them as civilians is deceitful, but we will leave the conclusions to the readers. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That report is also based off the MoH numbers, will place that with women combatants in a sec. Nableezy (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

women combatants

Among Classical Greeks, amazon was given a popular etymology as from a-mazos (Ἀ-μαζός), "without breast", connected with an etiological tradition that Amazons had their right breast cut off or burnt out, so they would be able to use a bow more freely and throw spears without the physical limitation and obstruction. There is no indication of such a practice in works of art, in which the Amazons are always represented with both breasts, although the right is frequently covered.

I made a change here that was challenged so I restored the prior wording. But I do have concerns about the wording. I do not see the need to make specific mention of these two women, 'included women combatants' seems to be enough. If the issue is the attempted suicide bombings we can work out better wording then combatants, but I really see no need to make specific mention of 2 unnamed women. Nableezy (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) actually, I am not even sure about the inclusion of the line, it is from old numbers that the IDF later revised. The newest numbers I have seen, and the ones used elsewhere in the article, specifically says 295 combatants, among them 49 women. Beyond the the specific mention of these two women, I am not sure that the numbers that the IDF used include those women which is how the article stands right now. Nableezy (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved it into the disputed figures section, and cited it explicitly to the CLA. Also removed specific mention, just said includes "female terrorists" used as a direct quote. Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The diff doesnt look all that good as I also cleaned up a ref that was taking too much space; the relevant change was removing the line from where it was and including this in the disputed section:

The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Col. Moshe Levi said that of the names the PMoH had released, 580 had been identified as members of a militant group. The CLA also reported that among the women the PMoH had counted as noncombatants were "female terrorists."
Nableezy (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence should be deleted, since 580 was merely the preliminary count. We know now that the final figure of those who IDF identified as members of a militant groups is 709. The second sentence is a misunderstanding. It should go like this: The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Col. Moshe Levi reported that among the women the IDF had counted as noncombatants were "female terrorists". Placing it in the disputed figures subsection is fine with me. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about that, the cite says the CLA was basing their identification off of the PMoH names, not off of the numbers the IDF later gave. Will remove first sentence though. Nableezy (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

'said Col. Moshe Levi, the head of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA), which compiled the IDF figures.' Basing its work on the official Palestinian death toll of 1,338, Levi said the CLA had now identified more than 1,200 of the Palestinian fatalities. Its 200-page report lists their names, their official Palestinian Authority identity numbers, the circumstances in which they were killed and, where appropriate, the terrorist group with which they were affiliated. You see, your mistake here might serve pro-Israel side even better, but for the sake of fairness this is not the case. Levi refers to the list he compiled.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. 'Combatant' has a connotation of a legitimate fighter. 'Terrorist' or 'suicide bomber' has a different connotation. CLA claim there were females who tried to blow themselves near the forces. So please be accurate with the wording here. Terrorists is the least I can accept here. Combatant is misleading.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, if you can't understand why 'terrorist' is no more or less misleading than 'combatant' then you shouldn't be working on this article because you have a conflict of interest. You should be familiar with WP:WTA by now and so I would urge you to think about why you think "Terrorists is the least I can accept here" and whether that is consistent with our policies and guidelines ? What is the objective ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My point in where the names come from is that the IDF final tally is different from the PMoH final tally. The IDF has given a number for total killed, the PMoH has given a different number. The CLA report was analyzing the PMoH report, saying that of the names on that list, we have verified that these people have died and some of the circumstances. The reports that the IDF issued as its numbers says specifically 49 noncombatant women. I find it extremely hard to believe that the IDF would themselves classify women they believed to have been killed in an attempted suicide bombing as noncombatant. As far as the use of the word 'terrorist', the source says they "tried to blow themselves up next to forces from the Givati and Paratroopers' Brigades"; I am sorry, but even a lose definition of the word terrorist does not include attacks on military personnel during an armed conflict. Also, "militant" is the generally preferred NPOV word around here. I would prefer using the word militant, but as long as we specifically cite the "female terrorist" I can deal with it. Nableezy (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the attacks by these females occurred during the conflict, they were combatants in the sense that since Hamas is not a 'standing army' even its 'regulars' can't be called soldiers. This of course by the nature of 'insurgency', to put it mildly in this context of ours. Terrorist and the hope of its inclusion is the main word that receives minimal attention. Cryptonio (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)One thing we need to try to stop doing somehow is perpetuating the opaque talking-at-cross-purposes in the article e.g. X says "there were 20 civilians and non-combatants". Y says, "No because 10 of those people were terrorists/members of Hamas" etc etc. It's nonsense. It's like X saying there were 20 people sleeping and Y saying "No because 10 of those people belong to a fitness club". X and Y are talking about completely different things. We're not helping readers by allowing this lack of clarity to spread into our article. We need to fix it...somehow. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

..another thing we need to stop doing is mixing up 'hasbara' and 'neutral encyclopedic information' because they're not quite the same thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that 'PMoH had counted as noncombatants were female terrorists' is hasbara. Saying that 'The IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) head Moshe Levi said that among the women there were "female terrorists." is encyclopedic information.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias distinguish between 2 kinds of thing, information (which is supported by evidence) and disinformation. They tend to exclude the latter where possible. In this example it's difficult to tell whether this is information or disinformation. The risk of it being disinformation is 50% for our practical purposes so we should treat it with the respect and weight it deserves which is not much. How do we draw a line that separates neutral encyclopedic information from participating in the disemination of what could be disinformation ? What would help greatly I think and make me feel better about this being included would be if this had been reported on in multiple reliable sources not written by Yaakov Lappin, if the IDF had named the women and provided evidence so that PHCR could respond to the statement which we could then include. As it stands we have no way to balance this statement. Attributing it doesn't really help with that. If there is consensus to include a mention of these 2 women then it's probably wise to also mention that the IDF provided no evidence. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence was added (and not by me btw) and I find it appropriate. You might want to add another sentence in this subsection: The Israeli military did not provide list of names to reporters. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar26/0,4670,MLIsraelPalestinians,00.html --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Wanna leave PMoH? Fine, so be it. I suggest this discussion is resolved.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced POV 'female terrorist' with actual alleged actions by these two females. Cryptonio (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'terrorism' is referred to actions taken. To include that perspective would be POV, instead we can include the actions and let readers decide what to label them. An encyclopedia shouldn't be a repository of views and 'labels', it is a place of facts and information. Nothing is set on stone to use a quote that clearly is bent on providing a POV. Two women are counted as non-combatants and their actions were to blow themselves up. Even a passive reader, would take from that, that if it is true, the actions of the women constitutes act of aggression or involvement in hostilities, and perhaps, by the narrative, shouldn't be counted as civilian casualties. What should be added then, and not the 'terrorist' moniker, is the reason given by the PMOH as to why include those two females in their civilian count. I am reverting this for the last time. Cryptonio (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the issue here is "body count", a simple sentence that these two females death are disputed is more than enough. If something else is added a balancing act is more than called for then. Travesty. Cryptonio (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They aren't disputed. Who are they ? To include anything is POV because it's unverifiable until the CLA publish their list of casualties. Professional journalists from reliable secondary sources that we rely on to fact-check for us can't verify this information until details are published. The PMoH or the PCHR or anyone else can't respond. No evidence has been presented that shows that these woman were suicide bombers and that the PCHR classified them as civilians. That to me is a far bigger problem for an encyclopedia than using the attributed term "female terrorist". The CLA may as well have said that a UFO landed. If we are going to lower the bar for inclusion in this article to this extent then why not just let the IDF and Hamas write it themselves ? It would save time. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On point. Cryptonio (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point was to not include specific information on these two? Why these two? What makes them special? There is no encyclopedic value in including the details of 2 casualties. I would ask that you self-revert. Nableezy (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I think it is fair to include criticisms that each side has made of the others numbers. We have the PCHR criticizing the inclusion of police in the IDF militant count, we have the IDF criticizing the PMoH numbers for including people they feel are combatants in the civilian count. I think it is both fair an reasonable to present the information that these numbers are disputed and why. We dont say who is right. Crypt, I reverted you again, please do not include the details on two deaths, there is absolutely no encyclopedic value in doing so. Nableezy (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Nableezy in that it's completely valid to mention criticism of the PCHR about women but it's unneeded infocreep to go into detail about the women. The Squicks (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's fair to include criticisms that each side have made of the others numbers. The question for me is when and how. In this case we have an IDF statement that it seems only one Israeli journalist has published. Other RS don't seem to have picked it up. I wonder why. Maybe they have somewhere. Female suicide bombers in Gaza sounds like something journalists might be interested in. I'd like to think it's because journalists try not to publish something unless they can verify it We already say that the IDF's position is that terrorists were counted as civilians. What value is added by saying that some were female, fat, thin, tall, short especially if the story hasn't been covered elsewhere. If a journalist at Al Jazeera published a story sourced from a Hamas spokesman that said that 2 women in the civilian casualty count were raped and shot by an IDF soldier but the spokesman/story didn't supply any names or evidence that the IDF could use to investigate the claim and the story wasn't picked up by other RS would we include it in the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a good point. But we do specify how many females per each source and (i think) classify them as non-combatant. Nableezy (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The question for me is when and how. In this case we have an IDF statement that it seems only one Israeli journalist has published. Other RS don't seem to have picked it up. I wonder why. Maybe they have somewhere.

Could you be more specific about what you're getting it here? I'm lost...

Sorry Squicks, what I mean is that we need to have sensible criteria to decide when to include information and how specific we get. It needs to be verifiable. We can feel more confident about including something reported by 10 RS than we can about something reported by 1 RS. This story only appears to have been reported by 1 Israeli journalist. Maybe it has been reported in other RS by different journalists. If not why not ? See WP:REDFLAG. I don't know but to me Sceptic should make the effort to demonstrate that this information is reliable as a prerequisite to it's inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What value is added by saying that some were female, fat, thin, tall, short especially if the story hasn't been covered elsewhere.

Yes, exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

If a journalist at Al Jazeera published a story sourced from a Hamas spokesman... and the story wasn't picked up by other RS would we include it in the article ?

Isn't this almost exactly the same as the situation that just happened? Haaretz reported some hearsay about some atrocity stories about the IDF that are largely without evidence? The Squicks (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I would apply the same criteria. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, seems like you simply overlook the initial intent of the piece of info I entered here. It is true that the IDF claim that Palestinian sources count militants as civilians is mentioned in the article. But that was not the point. The point was that (and I am still convinced that I comprehend that correctly) IDF included cases of female terrorists in its count of 49 females from the civilian group. Now someone had edited the sentence again, in a unreadable way. Finally, why don't you distinguish between 'to engage in hostility' and 'try to explode'? I fail to understand. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jan 14, 2004 - Four Israelis - three soldiers and one civilian - were killed and 10 wounded when a female suicide bomber detonated a bomb at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed joint responsibility for the attack. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm?DisplayMode=print would you call this woman as 'engaged in hostilities' against zionist entity?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

cmon, nobody said 'zionist entity', no need for the perceived hostility. An attack on a military location during an armed conflict can hardly be called a terrorist act. I said I was fine with the direct qoute "female terrorist" others objected. I also think that the proper word to use is militant, that is the generally preferred word representing a neutral medium between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter"/"martyr" (and if need be I can probably find a source describing the women as a martyr). Nableezy (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, 'hostilities' is just a standard term like 'civilian' or 'combatant' from the Geneva Conventions. Could you explain this a bit more ? I don't follow you.

But that was not the point. The point was that (and I am still convinced that I comprehend that correctly) IDF included cases of female terrorists in its count of 49 females from the civilian group. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I actually was the one who read the source differently, and had meant to ask somebody else to read it and let us know what they make of it, but got sidetracked by the above. The source is here. I read it as the CLA issuing a report based off the PMoH names released and made the noted observations. The IDF later issued a final tally and made a specific mention of 49 "female non-combatants" here. My contention is the CLA info is saying the PMoH numbers included these "female terrorists", not the numbers released by the IDF. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

'female terrorists' is fine, 'women who tried to explode themselves near forces' is fine. However, saying about someone wearing civil cloth and an explosive belt under it as 'someone who is engaged in hostilities' is wrong. You can say that Hamas perceives it as a legitimate way to resist the occupation. But this definition will not stand up to the standards of Geneva Convention, won't it? Again, we have no solid evidence it actually happened, this is why attributing the words to CLA is important. But it is important to understand that he was not talking about militants engaged in hostilities, instead he specifically mentioned cases of women terrorists.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza massacre

Vent may refer to: Volcano, an opening in the Earth's surface which allows molten rock, ash and gases to escape.

Reopening this discussion due to recent IP edit. Am concerned about RS that called it that, and not saying who called it that (so and so said it was a massacre while speaking to blah blah). Not a huge deal but it comes up here and ther and want to see if anyone has any thoughts. Would prefer this not turn into a hurricane of shit (100 other things deserve more attention) and just wanted to have a discussion available.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, with all due respect, I've been messing around other I/P articles, and the word massacre is used sparingly as lives in a cat. This usage is all for show and title names. That it is used here, at the expense of RS, should be ignored, IMO. In other words, there is conflicting reports, on how many people must die in order for the killing to compromise a massacre, it doesn't even take into account HOW they died, since violence it's always involved in these matters. This is due to the 80's approach to sensationalism etc. Well anyways, thought I would 'vent', a la coors d'light. Cryptonio (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually according to survey I made among other language Wikipedia articles describing this conflict my feeling is that the word massacre is not used as frequently as a skilled predator like Felis catus might think. We could make a pie chart maybe (according to language) to observe this point :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What's changed since this line with 6 citations with quotes obtained consensus ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "massacre" here is inappropriate, non-neutral, and used only as a political tactic. If you do a Google search of "Gaza Massacre 2009" today, there are 1.38 million results. Contrarily, searching "Gaza Crisis 2009" comes up with 12.1 million results. "Gaza War 2009" returns 42.6 million results. It is clear that "Gaza Massacre" is the outlier. Most times I have seen the term used it is used in quotes, citing only what Hamas has tried to brand the Israeli operation. (Operation Cast Lead 2009, by the way, comes up with 136 million results). "Gaza Massacre" is not what "the Arab world" calls the events in Gaza; it is merely what some in the Arab world have used to refer to those events. It should thus be included under the section on "international reactions." Major international news sources--including the most mainstream Arab media, Al-Jazeera--refer to it as the Gaza Crisis. The lead paragraph is too important to include something so contentious and unclear as the "Gaza Massacre." thedefenestrator 14:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

The search term results that have been given above are extremely incorrect. Here is the actual google results "gaza massacre" 156 k, "gaza crisis" 310 k, "gaza war" 866 k, "operation cast lead" 540 k, but all gaza massacre, crisis or war articles contains "operation cast lead" as a term. I don't know why did you searched for "gaza massacre 2009" anyway like it was a movie title, but "gaza massacre 2009" gives 24 k and "gaza slaughter" 30 k with "gaza genocide" 58 k pages. Also the search numbers doesn't involve pages like Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese or so just a conclusion by search terms will not be correct. Kasaalan (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should perhaps be in quotes too. However, even if Palestinian militant groups were the only ones to use this term I think it should still be in the lead and attributed to them because it's the name they gave to this event. I would hope that the name provided by one belligerent is given the same weight as the name provided by the other belligerent. We aren't talking about article naming here or the actual name of the event according to Wiki guidelines. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt need to be in quotes anymore than Cast Lead needs to be in quotes. Hamas has called it the Gaza massacre, it doesnt matter if anybody thinks they shouldnt call it that, but one of the sides uses a name, and like the name the other side uses it should be included. Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And as before, I am not opposed to just saying "Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza massacre". Nableezy (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A major problem with said attitude is that one belligerent is purposefully promoting blood libels and antisemitism and their naming modus-operandi should be neutralized by the other POV about the value of said title. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blood libel? Antisemitism? By using a name that contains the word massacre? I'll let that go, dont want to get into a pissing match. We dont make judgments here, we inform the reader. The government of Israel has called this conflict Operation Cast Lead (and a number of people have voiced displeasure of naming this after a childrens song), the government of Gaza has called this the Gaza massacre. Wikipedia needs to treat these two the same. Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not even a remote way of comparing the use of terminology of Israel with that of Hamas and yes, I whole-heartedly (and with the backup of reliable sources) stand behind saying that Hamas is antisemitic. If we were to merely use each side's terminology, that is the same as using "Iran calls it a hoax" in the lead of the Holocaust article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas being antisemitic isnt the point, how is the use of the term Gaza massacre antisemitic? The answer doesnt even matter though, even if it were antisemitic, and its not, that would be wikipedia making a judgement, which again is something we dont do. Nableezy (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nabliezy,

I'm well aware of wikipedia policies and everything I'm saying here is backed by sources. The "massacre" charges have indeed been charged as antisemitic and there's been notable criticism on the rhetoric as a whole as well. I'm in full support of adding the "Massacre" descriptive to the lead though, if it is combined with assessments that "The Gaza war triggered many expressions of antisemitism (i.e., statements against Jews at large) in the Arab and Muslim world, both by Arab leaders and politicians and by columnists. In their statements, they evoked antisemitic motifs taken from both traditional Islamic sources and from European ones. Cartoons featuring similar motifs were published in the Arab media."[8]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an article for that, Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and we cover it in this article as well. But it does not belong in the lead. If you have sources saying that the very name is antisemitic bring them and we can add them to the article, but the lead is not the place for arguments between the sides. Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review my previous example about the Holocaust article and respond to it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran wasnt a 'side' of the Holocaust, and that the present President of Iran has denied that the Holocaust killed the number of Jews that scholars say were killed isnt all that relevant. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair and unbiased to use the wording "Hamas, the government of Gaza (or perhaps, 'Hamas, the party in power in Gaza'), has named the conflict the Gaza massacre" in the lead paragraph. thedefenestrator 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

I also am in favour of Nableezy's recently proposed/added qualifier. It is more specific and perhaps more accurate than the 'in much of the Arab world' qualifier.Kinetochore (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing recent: Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_17#Lead_proposals Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of sourcing that the Arab world described the fighting as a massacre in Gaza. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are, I think the way we had it was fine and accurate, but the names that matter are the ones used by each side. Nableezy (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Arab world is not a side in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I am suggesting that this was a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a part of the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. The main sides here were Gaza and Israel. The names the governments of those two sides use are the ones that matter. If you want to return it to say the Arab world has called it the Gaza massacre that is fine with me, I changed it because other users had problems with the wording and I think that there isnt a problem by specifying that Hamas has called it this. Nableezy (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, your additions do not belong in the lead, and now another user who has not made any attempt to discuss the issue has readded them. Lovely, I was taking bets on when this article would again descend into a POV battle from its very beginning. Nableezy (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Off course they do belong but I've got no objection to returning to a version which does not include the "massacre" blood-libel terminology while we discuss this further. To be frank, it seems as though you are quick to dismiss Israeli perspectives while giving undue credence and notability to those of the militant organization involved. Anyways, I'd like to start with the issue of the "part of the Israeli-Palestinian" conflict text which I've changed. This original phrasing is both incorrect and is also not supported by the source. Give it a look (the source) and let me know if we're at conflict on this issue. We'll move on to the other issues after this one which can be resolved quickly, I'm sure.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

could you please stop with the rhetoric about blood libel? We include the name each side uses, no commentary on it. That you think the name is bad or wrong is irrelevant. There was no source for 'part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', I will get one if you insist. But an armed conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is most certainly part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nableezy (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. That you want to add something unrelated to 'balance' massacre, is not even worth considering. What does antisemitic acts have to do with what the arab world calls the war?

That Hamas controls Gaza comes from the AP, Hamas governs Gaza.

That Iran has ties to another an arab population is not surprising, what is surprising and, you know, dumb is to try to put Iran in the lead. Iran doesn't even belong in the article period.

That these things only make sense in your mind, is not notable. Cryptonio (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you should take a step back here from the language you're using. Please comment on content and not on fellow editors. If you have content concerns that something doesn't belong in the article, please make sure to be specific and to elaborate on your perspective.

Thanks and Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He didnt call you dumb, he called the edit dumb, which is also something he shouldnt have done, but lets not clutter up this page for no reason. Nableezy (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the resolution of this dispute represents everything that is awesome and revolutionary about Wikipedia. Thank you to everyone who participated with good intentions. thedefenestrator 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zschaps (talk • contribs)

Too bad it aint over, I have a feeling we will see the opposite side of wikipedia in the coming weeks. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, didn't even look at this discussion until now. Sorry, gents. Saw an editor remove it and it get reverted so thought a place to discuss would be OK. Doesn't look like anyone's feelings were too hurt but sorry for the extra back and forth. $5 says 2 months until the next round!Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the actual search term results from google as a reply. Kasaalan (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown of issues

Section started per the following diff: [9] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of

• I've made a few changes to the lead which were all reverted.[10] It feels as though a tag-team mentality is ruling this page since no one has bothered, best I'm aware, to give a look to my explanation that (at least) the first section about "part of the ongoing [[Israeli–Palestinian conflict]]" is (a) false, and (b) unsupported by the source (pg.5). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, with respect, if you start equating a name used by some people to describe the actions of the IDF with blood libel and antisemitism and you claim that this event is somehow not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict many people will simply stop listening to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean, with respect, not many people just don't understand the difference between Hamas and their "mukawama" and Fatah and their "fedayeen". One represents the Israeli-Palestinian struggles of the recent past while the other, which indeed derives some history from said conflict, is something difference. My notes (and understanding) on this are indeed backed up by the cited source.

p.s. we can discuss the "massacre" antisemitism issues in the relevant section. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: this seems like it could be an easy issue to resolve and it's a shame that there's no discussion made here. The source doesn't say "part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict". The cited page 5 of our only source says that it was "shaped by the entire history of the struggles" but it would be more accurate to apply a similar wording to our article. I'm open to discussion and suggestions, but this does need to be addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Government of

• Also, Hamas is not really "the" the government of Gaza. This mukawama organization entered politics and won a majority vote. After very few agreed to speak to it, including the Fatah, they occupied the strip by force and are now ethnically cleansing anyone who has a semblance of belonging to Fatah. Basically, it's still just an unrecognized mukawama organization who carved up "Hamastan", a place of Islamist rulership, for themselves. Obviously, we're not supposed to go into detail on this in the lead, but we should note that they are first and foremost a mukawama organization and not "the government of Gaza". I'm sure even al-Azhar and Henniyeh would agree here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They are the governing authority of the Gaza strip, aka the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Best I'm aware, there's a difference in this case between Government and Governing in this instance. We have a situation of a split people with two governments who do not recognize each other's legitimacy. Hamas, a militant organization with a "political wing", is occupying Gaza just as Israel (a democratic state) is occupying Arab villages in the West Bank. A suitable terminology would name Hamas' main 'organization/movement' title prior to mentioning their rulership over Gaza. I'm open to rephrase suggestions that address these two issues.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Putting it simply...

Hamas are a terrorist organization in illegal occupation and to give them legitimacy as "the government of Gaza" seems absurd. Simply put, them being in control doesn't mean that they are "the government" and i believe the text "government of Gaza" should be changed. Here's a compromize suggestion that works ok for me: How about, "Hamas, the de facto government of Gaza"?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, strangely enough I would agree partially with Nableezy regarding rhetoric in general and illegal occupation and ethnically cleansing rhetoric in particular. I'd go easy there. I would call this internal Palestinian conflict as ongoing civil war. Still while both Palestinian parties/governments regard themselves as the sole legitimate Palestinian government only PNA gained international recognition. It was clearly notable during this conflict, for instance when Abu Mazen represented Palestinians in Egypt hosted cease-fire ceremony. And also in reservations of international donors about cooperating with Hamas with regard of rebuilding Gaza after Israeli offensive. Bottom line agree de facto addition is appropriate. Keep well and warm. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah de facto is all proper, but not in this case. Hamas won elections, and those elections weren't disputed(the results that is) so there is no footnote to add to Hamas' capacity to govern. We understand that we must accommodate certain aspects of international standards of 'labeling' when it comes to the territories, but that is not a free pass to illegitimate or to scorn the little normal, day to day, familiarity that the Palestinian Territories enjoy(in full democratic honors I may add). So to bring up the PLO or the PNA or Fatah for that matter, it would be our responsibility to identify them in their actual role. Now of course asterisk would be added to properly place them in context, but not at the expense of Palestinians actions at the booth. And plus, whether it was the PLO or the PNA or the dancers from Congo, all of this organizations have fallen out of flavor with Israel when they stop accommodating Israeli demands for "peace". So Hamas wouldn't be any different, since they represent Palestinians as well. The book(Israeli lost law) has been thrown at all of these organizations in equal portions. Cryptonio (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Cryptonio,

I think you're confusing elections in the USA with those of the Palestinian Authority. The current Hamas "victory" status is more like winning a Blood-Sports match than taking a majority voting. When no one wanted to talk with them after their movement got more votes for "parliament" seats than Fatah, they decided to make the sham of an election^* into a violent coup where Fatah members were abused (read: cleansed[11]) from Gaza. To still use the "won the elections" claim and suggest there's any semblance of democratic thought behind the way they are currently in power is just to repeat Hamas' sloganeering. The victory would have been acknowledged had Hamas relinquished their terrorist agenda and embraced their new role as a political party (kinda like Israeli party Likud). Instead, they chose to further ratify their status as a "mukawama" organization rather than a democratic party so I'd request that you avoid suggesting they are "the choice of the people" (usually used by blood-thirsty Israelis who don't care if a civilian is hurt by the IDF). To be frank, I think "de facto" is a huge compromise considering who Hamas is and how they took control over the strip (democracy had nothing to do with it), but I'm willing to make this compromise considering the lead is not meant for controversial statements if they can be avoided.

p.s. please follow the facts: Hamas has been rejected by the Arab nations as the representative for the Palestinians and their issue.

p.p.s. Israel and the peace process has nothing to do with Hamas' violent coup. "Blaming the Jews" (per accommodating Israeli demands for "peace") is not a great way of building consensus.

^* Hamas' party was forced into the system by the US despite being undemocratic - kinda like someone forcing the US to add a really violent KKK group into the US elections.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You continue to miss the point. Did the laws for parliament(which you placed in quotes, as to disregards its functions or authority) allowed for a Hamas victory? Yes they did. Did Hamas followed the laws set in order to govern? yes they did. So then, de facto is not necessary because nothing illicit(as say, coup of state etc) happened in order for Hamas to govern. Now, I am not getting into what the hell did Fatah do in order to get in that mashing with Hamas, and I am not sayign they were to blame, but if a party wins, a party wins and its actions can only be challenged either at the parliament or at revolving elections. I could care less about the electoral process in the US. But hey, look at Bush jr, he won elections and then stifled dissent even in its own party, told the country the democrats were a bunch of un-american sissies etc. Did he waged war against the democrats? He didn't have to, when push came to shove, an equal number of democrats voted to authorize the Iraq war as repubs did. In all actuality, what Hamas and Fatah finished in the streets what was started at the booth, is of no detrimental(passive/aggressive) furnishing against Hamas LEGALITY to govern.

Hey, seriously I was not too far off when i said what you thought i meant 'whole heartily'. Nothing worked with the PLO, PNA, FATAH, ABBAS(the most nicest person in the world)(and ABBAS before Hamas was anything worthy of mention) or even before all of them. Nothing worked, even when it was Israel who was supposed to give up land, Palestinians gave even more land to Israel while all of this "negotiations" were going on, and nothing worked. Now explain to me how Hamas was "undemocratic". Did you meant to say instead "barbaric"? Cryptonio (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, and please provide a source if you have one that says I am, Hamas did not follow the laws set in order to govern. Also, I'm fairly certain that the whole "revolving elections" thing is ancient history by this point in time. There seems to be a gap between the democratic perspective you're presenting here and the actual situation. I'd suggest a review on what reliable sources are saying to help close this one but there's the added problem that some sources, mostly left-wing and pro-Palestinian ones, persist on differentiating between Hamas' "political wing" and their militancy. Here's a sample source on the government part of Hamas (and Fatah) - [12]. To be frank, I don't see a bigger compromise than "de facto" that I could make (I'd prefer "Mukawama organization in power at Gaza" or simply "the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip"[13]) and it's a bit frustrating that even this is rejected. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) adding the option that is most reasonable per sources. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas sweeps to election victory - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm

No mention of 'irregularities'. I am not sure what you mean "didn't followed the rules". Not then, not now did have I heard of anything diminishing Hamas electoral victory. Except of course, what happened next with Fatah. Now, that you think no more elections will take place in Gaza, is not something I'm not willing to defend or make any conclusion on it. Cryptonio (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with "de facto", then the best solution is to go with the generic -- "the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip"[14] -- view on Hamas. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your 'best solution' is not a solution at all. You are creating a problem where none exists. Hamas is the government of Gaza. They are the governing body in Gaza. You want to introduce extra commentary where it is not appropriate. Nableezy (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly me. Check it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006#Pre-election_opinion_polls

You have not presented any concrete or even half-detailed proposal on why de facto should be included. As is, the rules set in the elections, did not included a provision that calls for the winner of the elections to be called the de facto anything of Gaza. By now, I forgot everything you have said till now. It doesn't have to take a missive or even a paragraph to state why we should add an asterisk to the governance of Gaza. Cryptonio (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is first and foremost an Islamist militancy organization or movement and only afterwards, their "political wing" has a semblance of (an unrecognized) governing body after in the Gaza coup in 2007 they killed and arrested all the other parties' elected officials. I've provided a clear sample of this in reliable sources[15] and it would seem that you are suggesting we misrepresent Hamas as though they are only a governing body. I gave two suggestions on resolving this and if we can't move forward there ourselves, then I see no alternative to WP:DR (perjaps an WP:RfC) if you believe that is an acceptable way to move the dialogue forward. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify. 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC) fix link 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation. Hamas has a political wing and a military wing. Hamas' political wing is the governing party in Gaza. Hamas is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify electoral status. 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

I have no objection in saying that Hamas' political wing is the government of Gaza. However, we are discussing the Hamas-Israel conflict and to corner Hamas as only a political wing is indeed a misrepresentation. A pretty big one to boot.

I can't see you convlincing me to disregard the non-"political wing" portion of Hamas so I figured dispute resolution is the next step.

Thoughts/suggestions? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to act except unilaterally. "and it would seem that you are suggesting we misrepresent Hamas as though they are only a governing body". You want a commentary as per "Hamas won parliamentary elections, thus it makes them the ruler and kings of Gaza". The same thing can be said about any other office who gained access through elections, yet that is not standard here in wiki. Yeah Chavez called Bush the devil and whatnot, but that doesn't carry over once we walk pass the fringe(on either side).

Dude seriously, if you go up to anyone, and the first thing that comes out of your 'views' is this "Hamas is first and foremost an Islamist militancy organization or movement and only afterwards, their "political wing" has a semblance of (an unrecognized) governing body." and that body rules in your favor, i will say not a word and hang myself promptly. Cryptonio (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there mention already that Hamas also fires rockets besides hitting people upside their heads with the gavel? Cryptonio (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
Jaak, there is no misrepresentation that Hamas is only a political party. Governments have armies, or here militias. And there is plenty of information on the military wing of Hamas. Maybe you would have a point if we said the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is the government of Gaza, but we are not saying that. Nableezy (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well,

For starters, anyone who has a "militia" is technically a "militant organization" regardless if they have a "political wing" or not. Secondly, reliable sources describe them as "the Islamic militant group Hamas"(Reuters) and "the Islamist group ... de facto ruler of Gaza"([16]) which doesn't exactly coincide with describing them as "only a political party"(Nableezy). Please avoid making this misrepresentation in the future.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The US is a 'militant organization'? How about the state of Michigan? And I didnt say "only a political party", so please avoid misrepresenting what I wrote. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas did gained remarkable representation in Palestinian legislative election, 2006. No argument about it. While we talked about Michigan and elections, we missed somehow next step of democratic process - forming a government. Abu Mazen in his role of President of the Palestinian National Authority dissolved Hamas-Fatah government headed by Ismail Haniye [17] at June 14 2007 and formed new "emergency government" headed by Salam Fayyad. Legitimacy of such step was disputed by some sources [18]. Still so far international community, including UN, does not recognize Hamas government headed by Ismail Haniye and its rule in Gaza, see this conflict cease-fire ceremony. Thus de-facto is appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

De facto would be appropriate if de jure were not contested. By adding de facto you make the judgment that they are not also the de jure government, something that is highly contested. It is better to make no claims as to whether or not they are de facto, de jure, or both and simply say government, without qualifications or adding both de facto and de jure. Nableezy (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? According to UN international law experts - de-jure President of the Palestinian National Authority/Abu Mazen appointed government headed by Salam Fayyad rules both in Gaza and the West Bank. I'm personally not a law expert though. Which international institutions contest that? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Massacre and propaganda victory

• This seems to be the only real point of contest between us and it might need external perspectives if we can't compromise. Sources calling the event a "massacre" come from the Arab world who is a direct and notable party in the current war - the propaganda one - where naming conventions repeatedly evoke antisemitic motifs both from the christian and Islamic world.[19] Among other mukawama motifs, is the declaration of "Allah inspired victory" and this is as notable (if not more than) as all the "massacre" blood-libel hypocrisy (that's what it is) as it takes a huge volume of the post-event discussions. Since the "Massacre" naming in highly controversial for its antisemitic allusion and abuse (usually the word is added with the combination of "killing children"):
  Sample: "The massacre of Gaza is self-evident proof of the new SS: Zionist soldiers."[20]
  We cannot merely keep it as is since "that's how they call it". They also called it "Gaza victory" saying "Gaza Victory Paved the Way to Jerusalem" and other such mukawama sloganeering and I'm fairly certain there would be an objection in adding that title ("Gaza Victory") 'as is'. This is an emotional topic, I'm aware, as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza. In short, I'm open to adding the "massacre" blood libel rhetoric if it's noted that it's seen as such. Otherwise, we're giving an undue level of prestige of sorts to a fragment of one side's propaganda since it's clearly not "just a name". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC) clarify 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Man why haven't you been banned by now. Ashley got a year in the can for saying some of the same stuff you are now regurgitating. We have no use for any of this crap, and it is what it is, crap. If you so nonchalantly call Hamas a terrorist organization, if Ashley got booted for so plainly exposing the action of Zionism at the rise of Israel, you should be terminated from these projects. On top of that, you continue to propose these changes that make no sense whatsoever.

"as humans are being used/puppeted but Wikipedia's guides for neutrality are important here as they protect both Jews and Israelis from the smear campaigns as well as the Islamist movement in Gaza."

Are you kidding me? Are you using legally prescribed drugs ILLEGALLY? Just tell me right now, for how long are we going to have to stand up to this and be treated as kids?

Preposterous! Blasphemy! Cryptonio (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio Was that trip really necessary?

Jaakobou I share your concerns about use of fringe sources and undue weight placed on such things. But the terminology of "Massacre" is not just Arab, it is used by anti-Zionist (not anti-Semitic) articles around the world. The Nation has commented: "Barak just oversaw the disastrous Gaza massacre, now condemned round the world". The Huffington Post has a section called "Gaza Massacre". The Squicks (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know in a minute. Cryptonio (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Heyo The Squicks,

There's a very thin and complex line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Best to avoid it in this instance and focus on the main body being accused of using antisemitic motifs with this naming style (see above example) as there's not much value in discussing which sources are anti-Zionist. I'm open to rephrase suggestions that incorporate these sources as well but I'm fairly certain this is a step in the wrong direction for achieving a consensus where we'd want a conservative wording (in lead of the article).

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We present the name used as just the name used. We dont say anything else about it, nothing else needs to be said about it. If you think that the use of the name is antisemitic that is fine, go post that in a blog somewhere, but it does not belong here. Nableezy (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

I'm already aware of your perspective that "it's just a name" and that's how it should be written. While I made an effort to explain myself, adding sources to boot, you've simply repeated your initial "we'll write just the name" perspective on the issue which is clearly in disagreement.

I'm open to compromise suggestions that deal with the issues I've raised and I'm willing to keep an open mind to reasoning as well.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So would you object to me adding sourced statement saying that the Israeli government is inhuman (note not inhumane) to name this operation that resulted in the killings of 1400+ after a children's song? Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

and you need sources saying that Hamas calling this the Gaza massacre is antisemitic, not that antisemites have used the name as well. And a RS not somebodies opinion. Nableezy (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the source I addressed the "[The Jewish] massacres perpetrated by the Israeli forces in Gaza" issue with my provided source and that the phrasing was balanced and conservative as well.

but have also been charged with evoking antisemitic motifs in their statements.[21]

I'm open to other suggestions, but you've stuck to the one that insist that it's "just a name".

p.s. please avoid needless comments that suggest Israel deserves these antisemitic references (per Israeli government is inhuman .. operation that resulted in the killings of 1400+). We can talk all day about who is responsible for the Palestinian deaths but this is not germane to the issue of the Arab naming and rhetoric conventions for their fights with Israel.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC) clarify some 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC) +c 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is germane (and who said anything about deserving antisemitism, if you havent noticed I reject your idea that Hamas using the name is antisemitic), you argue that we should report what MEMRI (notice I how I asked for a RS) thinks of the name, but you dont want to report what people think of the Israeli name? What does having 'evoking antisemitic motifs' have to do with this. You want to add something to the reactions section it might fit there (with a better source) but you are trying to include commentary where it does not belong and only for the 'side' that you agree with. Nableezy (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that this very "name" is Arab commentary and not just a name. This is not about sides but about misuse of the lead to promote a[n antisemitic] context driven naming convention. There is no equivalent by the Israeli side that I'm aware of so this is indeed not germane to the discussion.

p.s. MEMRI is a reliable source for this article. They are certainly more reliable than al-Jazeera or the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights or the 'Arab News Network' which are currently used in there as well. Anyways, the issue still seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you stand by the position that 'massacre' is just a name. If you'll accept that it is not then we've made a step forward.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you imply, or deduce that those who say it's just a name, simply reported, are in someway or capacity engaged in believing the same 'motifs' that 'those' who use the name for 'antisemetic' reasons? If that's the case, a simple oath would do, in order to disdain that accusation, as a simple statement from you makes it true. No, I don't have antisemetic reasons for opposing you in this point or disagreeing with you.

This is perplexing to say the least. "but about misuse of the lead to promote a[n antisemitic] context driven naming convention." This is taken from, the patriot act or another dangerously written document like it. How you seem to connect massacre with antisemitism(or the sending of secrets code and messages by puppets through the lead) is beyond me, too bad is not a work of art though, i would be the first to applaud if that was the case. Cryptonio (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio,

I'm fairly certain I hadn't accused you of anything and to be honest, I'm having difficulty discerning when you are being serious and when you are not following the drug use suggestion[22] and the "hitting people upside their heads with the gavel"[23] thing. In any event, I don't believe I've made any suggestions to the beliefs of fellow editors but I apologize if you felt that making an argument about the content was a direct assault on your character. I had no such intentions and have no special reason to believe it either.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jaak, MEMRI is most certainly not 'more reliable' than al-Jazeera, and where is the PCHR used for a statement of fact (and they are not 'more reliable' than the PCHR either)? Sorry, but no, it is the name used. The name used by Hamas for this conflict is the Gaza massacre. You want to put criticism of the name for one, at the very least be consistent and say that criticism of both is acceptable. I dont think either should be in, that is a consistent position. An encyclopedia is not the place for such pushing of views, the name used by Hamas is the Gaza massacre. That is unambiguous statement of fact. That you do not like the name is completely irrelevant. It is the name used. And if you notice, you are the only one arguing this point. Everybody else was satisfied by attributing the name to Hamas. Yet for some reason you persist on this quest to label things as antisemitic because you think they are. Nableezy (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe bandying the term "antisemitic" around is not productive and is highly objectionable to many people here. An edit review reveals this as a strategy of Jaakobou. Original phrasing "...has been called the Gaza Massacre in the Arab world" is accurate. Knowing that I/P articles attract extremists, it's important for Wiki we not let reason be railroaded. RomaC (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back RomaC. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Saying the massacre is called only by Arab World will not be fully correct, but generally true if you replace arab world with muslims and leftists

Arab Side

Arab World Reacts to “Gaza Massacre”

gazasiege.org

Israeli Side

Antisemitic Statements and Cartoons in Wake of Gaza War Sided article since he even categorizes anti-Israel cartoons as anti-semitic, trying to add all jews into it, yet has some point and good sources.

Global

Some photographs after bombing This is why bombing over one of the crowdests population in the world can be called massacre, even you don't call that it is mass destruction since they demolished considerable amount of homes and property

The Politics of the Gaza Massacre Forget Hamas - it's all about the home front

IDF Soldier's Civillian Targetting T-Shirts

Israel Army T-shirts mock Gaza killings by Al Jazeera pregnant palestinian women on target of sniper 1 shot 2 kills t-shirt for IDF soldiers

Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings by Sky News Text and Photographs

College Clubs

Oberlin College Students for Free Palestine on Israel's Offensive in Gaza

Penn State Students for Justice in Palestine; Fighting displacement, discrimination and apartheid from Palestine to State College Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar; British Member of Parliament George Galloway on Palestine, Apartheid Israel and the Middle East

A.C.L.U. Slams John Bassett Cancellation of Dr Finkelstein Talk at Clark University

normanfinkelstein.com

Jews Against Zionism

AcademicsforJustice New Jewish Australian Committee for Dismantling of Zionism

True Torah Jews Against Zionism Orthodox Jews against Zionism and Israel state

Might be useful. Kasaalan (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying the massacre is called only by Arab World No, you are simply wrong. The article does not claim that only the Arab World uses the terminology. It simply says that the Arab World uses the terminology. That's it. The two statements "The Arab World uses the terminology" and "The Arab World along with others uses the terminology" are not contradictory. The Squicks (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The language is clear. Otherwise, if we edit to specify only Hamas, the second stage of the edit process becomes a fight to include a qualifier for Hamas, which opens the mother of all cans 'o worms. The version that stood for a long time is stable for a reason. RomaC (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My position on this is that it is called the Gaza massacre in the Arab world, but that doesnt matter. My feeling is that we have the name that each side has used. But I dont have a problem with in the Arab world either, just dont find it all that necessary. Nableezy (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Upon review, 'Gaza War'[24] is exceedingly more common than 'Gaza Massacre'[25] so it would seem that the debate over the nature of the "massacre" title is irrelevant for resolving this issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, the point is the government of Gaza, Hamas, has called this the Gaza massacre. That is why the name is there. Much like Operation Cast Lead being there, because that is the name the government of Israel has used for this. Nableezy (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We'd need a real review on sources concerning Hamas alone since you're making quite an exceptional claim considering my recent review. Also, please avoid confusing Hamas' "political wing" from the "Hamas" movement.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete Gaza massacre from the lead again Jaakobou, before gaining consensus for that. Tens of pages in the archives were devoted to discussing this issue, and the general consensus was to equal space to Arab and Israeli narratives by bolding both Operation Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. Deleting it without gaining consensus is sure to spark an edit war. I have reverted your deletion and ask that you refrain from repeating it again until we have polled all interested editors. Tiamut^talk 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As for your request for sources to back up Nableezy's claim re: Hamas, there are these:

• Fawzi Barhoum, a spokesman for Hamas, called on al-Qassam Brigades to continue and intensify rocket fire into Israeli communities bordering Gaza, blaming "the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre."
• Hamas called the assault a "massacre".
• Hamas condemns Gaza 'massacre'

Even Abbas and the quisling PA called it a massacre:

• Abbas condemns Gaza "massacre" as Israeli raid kills 15 Palestinians.
• PA: Gaza 'massacre' threatens talks

Not to mention many others, including Norman Finkelstein, Hugo Chavez, GulfNews, etc. Tiamut^talk 16:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I applaud you for collecting 7 sources, there's the slight issue that more than 7 million sources call it a war. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 7 million sources that does not provide a narrative within this context. In other words, there is Side A israel calling in it an operation, and Side B Hamas/Arab world calling it a Massacre. 7 million sources would be Side C calling it a war. Do you want to provide Side C with some space(mind you, it shall be taken out of your allotment)? And to who would you referenced to? the AP? BBC? under what capacity? "The major news organizations have called it a war"? Cryptonio (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox rethink ?

How about changing the infobox casualties and losses info from

Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR),[9] 1,166 (IDF)[10]
Militants and policemen:
491* (PCHR),[9] 709 (IDF)[10]
Civilians: 926 (PCHR),[9] 295 (IDF)[10]
Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR),[9]

to

Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR)[9] 1,166 (IDF)[10]
"Combatants" 236 (PCHR)[9] "Hamas terror operatives" 709 (IDF)[10]
"Civilians and non-combatants": 1181 (PCHR)[9] * "Uninvolved Palestinians" 295 (IDF)[10] "Men not attributed to any organization" 162 (IDF)[10]
Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR)[9]

Why ?

• This approach is closer to the sources and the terminology they use which I suggest we put in quotes. I also suggest we cite this IDF primary source in addition to the JPost secondary source as a reference for the IDF figures.
• The classifications used by the PCHR and the IDF are utterly different. The PCHR classification approach is based on International Humanitarian Law. The IDF classification approach is based on whether someone is a "Hamas terror operative" and that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target". We need to make this clearer somehow.
• PCHR classify casualties as either 'civilians' or 'militants' in their named list of casualties. People whose occupation is listed as 'Policemen' are classified as either 'Civilian' or 'Militant' presumably depending on whether they were assessed as non-combatants at the time e.g. #49 a Policeman is classified as a 'Civilian' whereas #50 another Policeman is classified as a 'Militant'. I suggest we follow the same schema for the PCHR figures. Note that I've added the 255 'non-combatant' policemen to the civilian total and note that there are 282 policemen in total (civilian+militant) in the named list. PCHR use the term 'Combatant' in their press release and 'Militant' in their named list to describe the same type of casualty. I suggest we use 'Combatant' because it's less ambiguous (even though it's technically incorrect) or alternatively we could use 'Combatant/Militant'.
• The IDF use different classifications. "Hamas terror operatives" is used to describe casualties who they say were members of militant organizations. They don't say what those people were doing at the time they were attacked so they can't be classifed using a standard combatant/non-combatant approach. They describe civilians as "Uninvolved Palestinians" and then there are the men they haven't classified.

The bottomline for me is that we need to do something to make it clearer to readers that the PCHR and IDF are neither counting or describing casualties the same way. Thoughts ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree 100% with the bottom line, this must be described clearer, putting the categories into quotation marks seems to me to be too unusual for a military history article and I'm not sure about doing it. The Squicks (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Disagree, the infobox is in wiki's neutral voice and should use neutral descriptors, not each sides chosen language. But a bigger concern to me is juxtaposition of the PCHR nos and the IDF nos, the IDF nos are more easily compared with the MoH nos (each sides government nos) whereas the PCHR is an independent (if not neutral) institution. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that we "should use neutral descriptors, not each sides" is dead on. But I don't agree at all about the PCHR verses MoH distinction. PCHR is a pro-Palestinian political action group. It is completely focused on one side. (Iin terms of the exact numbers, they are close to the MoH anyway).

The ideological point/counterpoint application of NPOV here means that the PCHR is a good counter for the IDF. If there was a pro-Israel political activist group that came up with its own count contradicting the IDF, then things would be different. The Squicks (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I said 'if not neutral', they certainly do focus on Palestinian issues. But they are not associated with the government. I do however think the PCHR nos are more reliable than the MoH nos so it isnt a huge deal to me, just putting an independent organizations nos next to a governments nos seems off. But again, it isnt a huge deal to me. Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One way of making clear that they are counting differently is not having militants and police combined; for the IDF nos have combatants and police, for the PCHR nos have police and non-combatants. Info on why they are counted differently is in the casualties section. Nableezy (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think of the MoH point. Good point but I'm not sure it matters as you say. The problem for me is that it just doesn't seem to be possible to use a standard wiki approach with neutral descriptors without lengthy qualification/explanation e.g. a PCHR 'militant/combatant' is not the same thing as an IDF 'combatant/militant', a PCHR 'civilian' is not the same thing as an IDF 'civilian' etc etc. We have to deal with that. It seems to be difficult to avoid introducing ambiguity unless we use the language of the sources or at least terms that unambiguously represent the meaning of the terms in the sources e.g. IDF says "Hamas terror operative", we could say "Member of militant group". I see the neutrality of terminology here as less important than ensuring that the terms we use (and hence the figures) are meaningful and unambiguous. The IDF have been quite careful in their use of language/terminology in their press releases/statements. It's difficult to avoid distorting things and misrepresenting what the IDF have said unless we are equally careful to use language that mirrors the IDF usage i.e. member of Hamas etc/uninvolved/uncategorized. As for the police, neither side treat Policeman as a seperate category so I'm not sure we should either. The PCHR put 255 policemen in the 'civilian+non-combatant' category and 27 policemen in the 'combatant/militant' category and policemen are "Hamas terror operatives" to the IDF. Anyway, my proposal was kind of an extreme starting point position. The key thing to avoid as far as I'm concerned is using the same word to describe different things. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the lengthy qualifications is what the casualties section is for. As long as we say the IDF says x civilians and the PCHR says y civilians I think it is clear that we are their definition of civilian. We can break those definitions down in the casualties section. I dont want to treat policemen as a separate cat, just combine them with militants for the IDF (as they do) and civilians for the PCHR (as they do) and say militants and combatants for the idf nos and militants and non-combatants for the PCHR nos. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree more with Sean here. It should be clear from the infobox that the two groups have different defintions of the same terms.

In the Wikipedia voice, something like 'Member of Militant Group' verses 'Combatant' works well, IMHO. The Squicks (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Im cool with that, but think it should say includes police for where each respective side includes them. Nableezy (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't any reader who sees the term 'Member of Militant Group' automatically think that it includes all members? By definition, wouldn't it include police? The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think so, given that the PCHR counts police as civilians. I would typically associate police with civil service, part of the government not the 'military', in this case 'militant group' Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going mention policemen specifically then I'm in favour of retaining the '* <some comment about policemen>' but not the current comment because it's a bit misleading. PCHR don't treat policemen any differently from the way they treat taxi drivers, students or anyone else in their list. It's just an occupation and they assign either civilian or militant status to policemen on a case by case basis. So the note '*255 policemen were killed (240 during initial airstrikes)' should perhaps be '*includes 255 policemen' and the PCHR combatants figures would have '*includes 27 policemen'....we would need to add the ref for the named list of casualties. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I would also associate police with civil service and most and foremost the force that preserves law and order. Like for instance stop dudes which fire rockets not really in accordance with International Law. Local laws might be different and more valid, what's considered illegal, even by international law, might be legal locally. So police for instance might preserve law and order in which dudes could continue firing since it's right and legal thing to do. Welcome to cognitive relativism, Nableezy. And there are plenty of RS reporting about Hamas police catching thieves and burglars. As for armed force part, here is reliable source which describes Hamas police starting laying down law in streets of Gaza, aftermath of event described by this article as 2007 Hamas military victory. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556185/Hamas-police-lay-down-law-in-Gaza.html

Hamas has bolstered the police force with about 400 members of its so-called Executive Force and militants on loan from its armed wing, the Ezzedine al Qassam Brigades.

They (policemen) slammed ammunition magazines into the butts of AK47s and piled into blue police Jeeps, pickup trucks and a battered white van with no side door.

During this conflict, in a matter of days after cease-fire declaration, RS reported Hamas police was back on street in full blue uniform and armed with AK47s.

Prior to this conflict intensification, Hamas declared end of cease-fire, making rocket fire (considered illegal by international law) an official policy. It might be reasonable to consider that Hamas armed forces were providing security infrastructure (law and order) for implementing this governance policy. I'm not an international law expert, but according to civilian article, armed forces members unconditionally excluded. Armed forces term does not include police force unconditionally though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a simple as Local laws might be different and more valid, what's considered illegal, even by international law, might be legal locally. Other states have legal obligations to uphold international law in other countries not just their own which is why it is possible for a human rights group to take the UK to court for failing to take action to ensure that international law is applied in the occupied territories. States can't just step out of the system and do anything they want....in theory. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest that it is not an obligation of Hamas/police force in Gaza under International Law to stop violations, like rocket fire? Who's responsibility is it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, that you don't read this article is non-forgiving. Check it.

"Rocket fire decreased by 98 percent in the four and a half months between June 18 and November 4 when compared to the four and a half months preceding the ceasefire.[65] Hamas denied responsibility for the rocket fire during the 'lull'. However, Human Rights Watch reported that while Hamas security forces demonstrated an ability to curb rocket fire, some people detained for firing rockets were summarily released without explanation. [57]"

Challenge that man. Cryptonio (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, thank you for acknowledging Hamas has some responsibility for what is happening in Gaza. I guess the point of my comment was that while rocket fire is against International Law the problem is that some people detained for firing rockets were summarily released. Normally I would expect that court legal system should deal with such people. And there are courts in Gaza, independent of Israeli legal system. Unfortunately both for people of Gaza and for people of Israel, violence against Israelis is OK and legal under Hamas law, also when the violence crosses line of International Law. Hamas police force is armed with AK47s to preserve this kind of law and order. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Both sides are breaking international law according to someone. Both sides need to stop according to someone. I think we say that in the article but probably not briefly enough... Sean.hoyland - talk 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This started as what we should be writing in the infobox, can we get back to that? Nableezy (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oka, one more and then back to the infobox. You know Agada, I won't extend here. The Israeli operation wanted to accomplish with military action, what the ceasefire achieved without a bullet fired from either side. Yes, of course, you will know say that even ONE rocket that falls in the pits of useless terrain(desert) is ONE too many rockets that the people of southern Israel is willing to accept. SO they sacrifice the lives of their soldiers and increase the danger on the civilian in order to stop ONE rocket a month from Hamas. This, of course could be viewed from a different angle, specially since this operation was in the making almost from the day the ceasefire took place in june(yes, it seems as if both sides really meant it as a ceasefire. Yes the men firing rockets were released, after being detained. were you part of the investigation etc? but even more importantly, ONE person could have fired those 5 rockets that landed in Israel during the first four months of the ceasefire. YES ONE PERSON COULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED AND LATER RELEASE AFTER SOME LASHINGS(as is the custom in backward law system as is the case of Palestinian 'redneck' justice'). Thanks for making dull that sticking point of men being released after firing 5 rockets at israel, at the same time, mind you, that Israel was getting jiggy wit it. Cryptonio (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If the Palestinians are anaologous to the rednecks, than what does that make the Israelis? Are the Middle East's latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, Obama-supporting metrosexual limosine liberal elitists? The Squicks (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the most wily, witty, jocund, genius thing you have every posted in here. I don't even have time to laugh is making me feel so good in the inside. I was beginning to think you were a robot or something. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue of legitimacy of attacks on the police

I know everyone is tired of the matter. However, this is the most comprehensive definition issued by HRW: Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center present evidences, indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to add the Israeli claim that these police stations are militants. But we do not make the judgment that those claims are true. Can you find a better source (reliable third party), I can in the morning if you dont get to it. Nableezy (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I think this kind of misses the point. The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center doesn't make legal decisions for the IDF so I don't see what this adds to anything. The IDF have their own lawyers who authorise these kind of attacks and can speak for themselves. The IDF have explicitly said that anyone and anything affliated with Hamas is a legitimate target as far as they are concerned. Whether that is formally or informally is of no interest to them. See ref 206. They are complying with their interpretation of international humanitarian law. In fact they believe that if you do something often enough it becomes legal as stated just a few days ago by the head of the Israeli Supreme Court in her campaign to get international law changed. The ILD (IDF's international law division) authorised the attack against the cadets "with no difficulty" because of their "categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals". They were not regarded as police. They were regarded as part of the "enemy's armed force". The ILD approach is that "the way Hamas operates is to use the entire governmental infrastructure for the organization's terrorist purposes". The ILD have all sorts of interesting opinions that determine what the IDF can do e.g. "The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields. From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting". This is a piece about the ILD and the source of my quotes. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

..so in summary, anyone can be categorized as part of a resistance force if necessary and then killed legally from the IDF perspective. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it sentence by sentence. The current sentence in the article says that 'Under international law, combatants include only those directly engaged in hostilities'. And later, 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, and if police officers do engage in hostilities they may only be attacked while doing so. I suggest to replace it with the more comprehensive definition, provided by HRW as well: 'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes.' This has an important distinction, absent before: '... unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict'. I want to include it in the article. Objections?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In the official statement, IDF made clear that Israel regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSLQ977827 Mar 26, 2009. I want to include it in the article. Objections?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Institute for National Security Studies adds further that Israel sees the civilian police in Gaza as part of the military establishment. http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=2654--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center presents evidences, indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Both organizations has nothing to do with the IDF. The latter presents some examples that are supposed to provide basis to the Israeli claims that police in Gaza is actually incorporated in 'resistance forces'. It has authentic names, photos, publications. I don't think these are cited elsewhere. In my opinion, it is important to provide it to the reader of the article, so he can understand better the Israeli view on the matter. Right now, the subsection leaves an impression that attacks on the police were wrong. This is to balance it. I abstain from inserting a conclusion whether these attacks are justified or not, but I think it is important to present Israeli view, including access to evidence.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have objections in principal. It's the details I'm concerned about. HRW are using legal speak. What do they mean by 'armed forces' ? Are Hamas legally defined as 'the armed forces of a party to a conflict' ? I doubt it given that that would make them an army and give them combatant status under international law with all the benefits that go with that. The HCJ (and everyone) have explicitly stated that terrorists are not and can never be combatants legally. An armed Hamas guy firing a machine gun directly at an IDF soldier is at that moment legally defined as a civilian, not a member of the armed forces, not entitled to POW status and not entitled to protection anymore as a civilian because they are trying to kill someone. So my understanding of the HRW statement is that police can be attacked if a) they are formally part of the armed forces=military or b) they've lost their protection as civilians because they are fighting. IHL is black and white, no gaps, you are either a) a combatant=army or b) a civilian=not army. Every Palestinian is a civilian all the time, no exceptions. If they fight they can be captured or killed under IHL.

You see, you yourself are falling into interpretations. This is not our task, isn't it? I guess that those who are times more proficient than us can not resolve it unequivocally.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding "Right now, the subsection leaves an impression that attacks on the police were wrong". If the subsection indicates that the attacks on the police who were not directly engaged in hostilities are regarded as illegal under the norms of IHL according to pretty much everyone apart from Israel it would be accurate. That is the key point. There's a difference between IHL and IDF's version of IHL. Let's make sure we don't make a false balance here. We should explain the Israeli view of course but please let's keep the hasbara and legal stuff in general to a minimum. Israel is a state that has legalised assassination. They are exceptional in their views of what is legal. Let's not forget that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, Sean, leave the 'hasbara' alone. You agree we are entitled to present Israeli view of things, are you not? I have already said what I suggest. To insert the more comprehensive definition by HRW (without interpretations); to insert quote from official IDF statement; to insert INSS report, presenting evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. Each reader would judge for himself. Agreed?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From the article. "The IDF justified the strike, which killed at least 40 trainees, claiming that Gaza police were involved in Hamas military activities, but the IDF didn't provide any information to substantiate this allegation. Human Rights Watch argues that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat. [212]"

That IDF says "We can attack those policemen who 'moonlight'(as per actual source, if not 212 somewhere around here) as Hamas operatives". HRW in turn says, what it says there. We are not judging this thing, we are simply stating what has been stated. If there is a magic lawful wan, that will give 'you' peace of mind at night, then use it.

Now this "To insert the more comprehensive definition by HRW (without interpretations); to insert quote from official IDF statement; to insert INSS report, presenting evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. Each reader would judge for himself. " is already included in the article. The problem here is as it may seem, is this "Human Rights Watch argues that even if the Israeli claim is true, it is not legal to target police that were not engaged in combat." But notice that this explanation (and counter points) only covers the policemen(or the trainees rather) that were killed

at the start of the conflict. I don't see how it extends to the actual disputed 'overall' casualty count.

In other words, HRW are not actively engaged in 'helping' actual policemen that were or were not killed while engaging in combat. Cryptonio (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't see any objections over this "'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes.'" Stronger language is always encouraged. No need, IMP to include how international standards would influence Hamas and its operatives. THe little HRW protection or wording matters very little in actual circumstances. I believe that the current sentence already in the article that says "policemen are target if they are engaging in combat" more than adequately gives Palestinian view point etc. Cryptonio (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any objections over this "'Under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes.'"

If you look back into the archives, you can see that I strongly disagreed with that wording (I think others did as well), but we were overruled. Personally, I had strongly argued for "Groups such as ____ interpret international humanitarian law as saying that police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities." for NPOV balance... but I deferred to the consensus. The Squicks (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, if you point out a public perception problem based on morality and characterise it as an impression that attacks on the police were wrong and then seek sources/edit in order to explain that it wasn't wrong, that is hasbara because it 'seeks to explain actions, whether or not they are justified'.

Now, as for the proposed edits. I have no objections to something like "According to HRW, under international humanitarian law, police are presumed to be civilian, and thus immune from attack, unless formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities. The same applies for police stations unless they are being used for military purposes."

As for interpretation, the legal term "armed forces of a party to a conflict" is a direct word for word quote from the Third Geneva Convention. It's not 'my interpretation' that Hamas are not legally defined as "armed forces of a party to a conflict". It's the legal opinion of Israel's Supreme Court.

"The terrorists and their organizations, with which the State of Israel has an armed conflict of international character, do not fall into the category of combatants. They do not belong to the armed forces, and they do not belong to units to which international law grants status similar to that of combatants. Indeed, the terrorists and the organizations which send them to carry out attacks are unlawful combatants. They do not enjoy the status of prisoners of war".

So I would say that there should be due care, attention and explanation given when quoting legal terms because they can be misused, misunderstood and quoted out of context. Once again, just like 'civilian' we have the same words being used with different meanings in different contexts. When that happens I think it is part of our role to interpret and disambiguate them for readers if we can or we will find ourselves unwittingly participating in a shitstorm of misinformation and propaganda from both sides. As for www.terrorism-info.org.il and Israeli Institute for National Security Studies I regard them as pretty worthless sources. The IDF's lawyers very clearly and eloquently spelled out their position on this specific attack (and many other issues) in the Haaretz article. It seems like the perfect source to me to explain Israels official position on this matter. These are the guys who actually authorised the attack. There's no complicated legal word games about incorporation or whether they are "armed forces of a party to a conflict" as per the Third Geneva Convention and therefore automatically entitled to POW status etc. They just come straight out and say that they "are the equivalent of the army".

The "incrimination" of the policemen (that is, justifying an attack on them) was based on their categorization as a resistance force in the event of an Israeli incursion into the Gaza Strip; not on information about any of them as individuals. "Underlying our rationale was the way Hamas used the security forces," says a senior ILD figure. "Actually, one can look at the totality as the equivalent of the enemy's armed force, so they were not perceived as police. In our eyes, all the armed forces of Hamas are the equivalent of the army, just as in the face of the enemy's army every soldier is a legitimate target."...my bolding

It doesn't really matter whether INSS has evidence that policeman Y was in Hamas etc because the ILD have already said information about individuals wasn't used for their legal decision. It also doesn't matter whether the INSS thinks the police were incorporated etc because their opinion is worthless compared to the IDF's lawyers when it comes to explaining Israel's position. This is what I mean about keeping hasbara and the legal stuff to a minimum. Why not keep it simple and just let the IDF's lawyers speak for themselves based on the Haaretz piece ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 24 April 2009 (

Sean, seems like we are making progress here. 1. If we include in the subsection 'disputed figures' ILD decision that you provided, this is a good start to present the Israeli view on the subject. 2. It is true that IDF does not need some NGOs or anybody to make decisions. Still, what's the use of presenting someone's view based on nothing? INSS provides, as I said, some evidencies that support this view. I repeat, all this evidencies are meant to say one major statement: in Gaza, police is routinely incorporated in the Hamas' military wing. INSS report is all about that. It indeed presents some indivisuals with double affiliation, but it has much more. You want to make it simple? So do I. I suggest two things. First, to include the full definition, citing HRW. period. next paragraph. Second, to say that IDF perceives Hamas as body that uses security forces in Gaza as the equivalent of the army, citing Haaretz. Since IDL's quotation in Haaretz are plain words, I want to include some evidence from NGO INSS, saying that INSS report provide evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sean's right on the money. My personal concern is not that information should not/ should be be included. I'm just worried about putting thes arguements in the voice of Wikipedia. Something like The police are civilians or its twin The police are combatants are simply not acceptable. Something like According to ___, the police are defined as non-combatants if ___ is well worth including. The Squicks (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. That is what we are talking about. The question is, do you think it is appropriate to insert that according to INSS report, evidences indicating that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces are incorporated in Hamas’s military wing and has double affiliation both as policemen and as militants.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies in the PCHR list of fatalities

I am about to start new section here. I have no idea whether to incorporate it in the article. It is based mostly on original research. Due to differences in the spelling of Arabic names, it is feasible I missed someone who actually is listed. I encourage Arab speaking participants to recheck my findings in the Arab-language data and report their findings. Before I start publishing discrepancies in the PCHR list, a question to the participants: if during cast lead, a t had hit the IDF headquarters, killing say Major General Eliezer Stern, former Chief Commander of the Manpower Directorate, would he be counted as civilian or military casualty? And if the rocket killed him, during the operation, in his house sleeping on a weekend?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC) The following refers to [198] source of the article, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Case study #1. Number 231, Salem Ahmed Salem Abu Shamla. Described as jobless, civilian. However, he was presumably executed by Hamas, apparently due to his Fatah affiliation. See #9 below. http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=35455. Just to put things in the proper context, other names of the executed were not found.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Case study #2. Number 583, Mohammed Abed Hassan Barbakh. Described as 19, jobless, civilian. However, in the link below he is described as a commander in the military branch of the National Resistance Brigades (DFLP): 'Before noon on Sunday an airstrike killed the DFLP senior leader, Muhammed Abed Barbakh, his father Abed and his two brothers Mahdi and Yousef, also his nephew Musa Yousef was killed when missiles struck the home in the An-Nahdah neighborhood. Barbakh was a commander in the military branch of the National Resistance Brigades (DFLP).' http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_29247.shtml. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Case study #3. Number 959, Amir Yousif Mahmoud al-Mansi. Described as Engineer/member of the Civil Defense, civilian. However, according to ICT below, The IDF killed Amir Yusuf Mansi, who was the commander of Hamas rocket cells operating in the Gaza City area. http://www.ict.org.il/NewsCommentaries/Commentaries/tabid/69/Articlsid/603/currentpage/1/Default.aspx. According to Haaretz, 'Amir Mansi, the commander of Hamas' rocket-launching program in the Gaza City area who was killed by the Israel Defense Forces on Saturday, fired mortars himself after junior Hamas operatives refused to go outside, fearing an Israeli strike.' http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054245.html. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Case study #4. According to the link below, 3 senior Hamas operatives were killed during the second day of ground invasion, January 5th. However, checking name-by-name on adjacent dates produced only one result in PCHR report. 'Housam Hamdan and Mohammed Hilou -- both senior members of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades -- were killed in an airstrike in Khan Yunis in southern Gaza, Hamas sources said. Hamas sources said Israeli forces in Jabalya killed Mohammed Shalpokh, a member of Hamas commando forces which Israel blames for launching rockets from northern Gaza.' The latter identified as Number 565. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/04/israel.gaza/index.html. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but none of this can go in the article. You would need to find a reliable source making these claims. We also do already say that the PCHR civilian list contains Hamas members killed in noncombat situations. The first one I dont know about, in fact I have no idea about the particulars of any. But I've been dealing with work issues all night, so dont plan on checking further into this, but do keep in mind that if you start a section saying it is based mostly on original research it almost certainly does not belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I know OR generally is not encouraged. While PCHR guided by International Law guidelines, armed groups and news agencies in Gaza and Ramallah disagree. Here is cross reference of PCHR list with Al Qassam, Ma'an and other Palestinian reliable sources. So far no fewer that 152 resistors/warrior shaheed identified among PCHR civilian casualties. There might be political rather then legal reasons for classification dispensaries in reliable sources though. Some things just get Lost in translation :) AgadaUrbanit (talk)

Nableezy, as I said, I understand the general policy. Moreover, I wrote myself that currently I can't think of a way to install it properly in the article. However, I will ask you a question, for the sake of small talk between friends: what reliable source do you need to open this http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf, then go to line, say, 231, and to see with your own eyes the man is counted as a civilian casualty, while Maan news agency claims the man was executed by Hamas?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, I implore you to try to understand that outside Israel there is a difference between membership of an organisation and what someone was doing at the time of death. It is what someone was doing at the time of death that defines legality and non-combatant status outside Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: if during cast lead, a rocket had hit the IDF headquarters, killing say Major General Eliezer Stern, former Chief Commander of the Manpower Directorate, would he be counted as civilian or military casualty? And if the rocket killed him, during the operation, in his house sleeping on a weekend? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do me a favor, would you? Read cases #1, 3, 4, and tell me what do those cases have with what you are asking from me? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat words of AgadaUrbanit: I know OR generally is not encouraged. But at least I wanted to share the findings here. I ask Sean and others to pay attention: some cases describe those who were reported as killed but could not be found. Other cases are dealing with the killed occupation and civilian/military status.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Case study #6. Number 412, Nizar Abdul Kader Mohammed Rayan. PCHR states that he is University Professor. Regardless of the fact that he was not involved directly in the warfare and is considered civilian casualty, he was, according to Al-Jazeera, one of the most senior Hamas officials. 'Nizar Rayyan is the most senior Hamas official killed since Israel unleashed its massive bombardment on Gaza seven days ago'. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911133527449783.html. Not to include this data is a half-truth, isn't it?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Case study #7. On 9.1.2009 forces targeted Batarek Abu Amshav, a senior Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative. Abu Amshav, 22 from Beit Hanoun, is responsible for planting explosives against IDF forces, and for daily rocket fire on to Sderot and the surrounding communities of the Gaza Strip. Hamas operative Muhammed Nagad, 26 from Jibaliya, was also targeted during the operation. http://dover.idf.il/NR/exeres/FEDAD40D-9AEB-453E-9665-6FD68BD0FE14.htm. Both were not found. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Case study #8. On 3/1/2009 A senior commander of Hamas' armed wing, Abu Zakaria al-Jamal was killed. He was commander of Gaza City's rocket-launching squads. In another air strike, Jamal Mamduch, commander of the Gaza City battalion, was killed. First absent, second found - #479. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my answer to Sceptic Ashdod's question:

I must say that my general feeling is that if a person is a member of an organization that is in war with some other organization, then he (or she) must be a legitimate target at any point of time during the conflict. Say that IDF would have sent a group of soldiers into Gaza, killing some combatants and then gone back sleeping somewhere in Israel, perhaps far behind the lines, and then become killed by rockets, it would be combatant casualties. If someone in Gaza engage in battle, then he must be considered to be part of the combatants and a legal target. If combatants only are combatants 8-17 each working day and non-combatants the rest of the time, it would surely make it hard for the israelis to fight and I have never heard of such ideas in other wars. If they don't use uniforms, as claimed by the IDF, it becomes even worse. So any person that is part of an armed force is a legitimate target, those giving orders should then also be included. I don't know anything more to write in order to explain my reasoning now.--KMA "HF" N (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now in here you try and make the case, that 'some'(or specifically the names that you have posted) civilian were part of Hamas military wing, and thus are viable targets. You were asked a RS(and it shouldn't be all that hard to gather). I would say that the case was already made for you, with Israel's rationale that if they are associated with Hamas, they are 'legal' targets. What else are you looking for, state your proposal please. Cryptonio (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue with IDF's legal targetting approach is, if Hamas is hiding in your home, you are a legal target, if you are a family member of a Hamas gunmen, you are legal target at your home. So are you sure an IDF officer's home is a legal target, so bombing it would be legal. Or if an IDF officer hide in a civillian home, bombing the home by Hamas would be alright. Kasaalan (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

can you try sending this claims to PCHR mailbox so maybe they put an answer to the claims. By the way it is necessary to point out if the target is a member of arm wing of Hamas, or political wing. Because Gaza Strip is ruled by Hamas political wing, and if you target all Hamas members the number gets really high, and if you consider anyone the votes for Hamas then 45 percent of the population is a legal target. You should also reversely think, so if you put Hamas political wing as legal target, then all the Israeli government politicians should be considered as a legal target, since they send the army to strike Gaza, and they are responsible for the high number of civilian casualties. If you expand the legal target approach like this, then you reach a conclusion like Hamas, who tries to whitewash suicidal bombing in crowds. Hamas or IDF is not any better than each other, yet IDF has a denser civilian and children kills. Kasaalan (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point.

Personally, as someone who supported the Israeli, Irish, Algerian, Kosovar, Chechynian, Bosnian, Croatian, and Slovenian wars for independence (mixed feelings about the Palesinian one though)- I believe that a non-uniformed 'partisan' should be able to walk up to a senior military officer's friend's personal home, ring the doorbell, and then shoot him in the doorsteps. I would consider that to be a perfectly legitimate act of war.

Interestingly, a member of the American Jewish Congress with whom I recently talked to said the same thing about Hamas v. the IDF: "Fighter verses fighter is fine, that's not terrorism- that's just plain war." The Squicks (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, yet if you involve the families that is not true. Can you walk to an officer's neighbour while he visits them, kill the officer and his neighbours or family and call that a war. IDF shoots Hamas gunmen with tanks while they hiding even in civillian buildings. Just try reading Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF to get my point. Kasaalan (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio, Kasaalan and everyone else: all those cases I presented (and I am afraid you didn't read them) were not to address the legality of targeting them. This was to show, to what extent is PCHR fatalities list is, eh, imperfect. For example, it includes apparently one Fatah member who was executed by Hamas (case #1); it describes someone who was apparently engaged in the battle as civilian (case #3); it does not include militants killed (case #4, 7, 8) and so on. And no, I do not want to, and do not have to, make inquires with the PCHR. Still, as I said, I do encourage Arab-speaking participants to reexamine my cases. One more thing. All the deaths in my cases were documented in RSes I provided. The PCHR list I provided. I will wait for some RS that will bring all these cases together. Meanwhile, just take a look. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To Kasaalan. to claim that Hamas has separate political and military wings is, excuse me, nonsense. The notion that Hamas's military, political, and social "wings" are distinct from one another is belied by ample evidence. In fact, the records show, Hamas meets in the mosques and hospitals it maintains to plan terror attacks, buries caches of arms and explosives under its own schoolyard playgrounds, and transfers and launders funds for terrorist activity through local charity committees. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=265. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well they are not all that distinct if they carry the Hamas 'brand'. That because they carry the Hamas 'brand'(for copyright infringement purposes i suppose) is the reason why the political and social wings of Hamas are/were targeted. But what happens to the personel who is only in it for the salary and has not planned or is planning in taking part of the actual fighting? when they are killed, were they pushed by Israel's rationale to fight and die without actually fighting?. Maybe the IDF does not buries caches of weapons and volatile explosives under playground, but i'm sure it does worse things. stop this nonsense. Cryptonio (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing subject, ah? Pointing finger towards IDF, which, you are sure, does worse things. With that I can't argue. But there is one sentence, how did you put it? 'what happens to the personel who is only in it for the salary'? Like Eichmann maybe? Nothing personal, just following orders. Yeh, why not. Blame it on the IDF that all the personel below were working in police for salary on days and sending rockets on Sderot at night just for fun. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm . Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing subject? I addressed your last para. Anywho. You give one example of perhaps someone living a double life. That's fine, what is not fine is to take that one example and say that every single male in gaza was a Hamas operative, as is the case being made by Israel. Were those names that you have posted involved in actual fighting when they got killed or simple 'party affiliation' was key for being targeted. Only one of those case studies that you provided(and I am sure that if there was more like it, you would have posted it here) shows one of those men actually firing rockets while being killed. The others, simple party affiliation for that it matters to us. But if you are looking for discrepancies, look no further in the numbers of children killed giving by the Palestinian and the TOTAL number of civilian casualties given by Israel. Now, of course I am sure you have something up your sleeve for those Hamas children. Cryptonio (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you neglected all the cases where the militants killed are not found on PCHR list. As for the children, the answer is yes and no. Yes I do have something up my sleeve. And no, it will not convince you in anything. Do you know that militants in PCHR list include two 16 and five 17 years old (no, they are not included in the chidren's count)? It is interesting to look at the distribution between males and females. Up to 11, the casualty's numbers of girls and boys are more or less the same. Total count of children younger than 16 shows some incline to boys. What about 16-17? 11 girls and 68 boys. The same about fatalities above 18: about 115 females, about 490 males out of total 900+ civilian casualties. I know, it will bring us back to your post. Nevermind. Did you like case #6? University Professor? It is truth btw. But somewhat one-sided. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"you neglected all the cases where the militants killed are not found on PCHR list" You mean names on the Israeli list as militants but not militants under the PCHR list? If that so, I didn't neglected anything. You would then show proof that they were firing missles, but I only say one case of that nature. Again, that some of these men were part of perhaps one of the largest employer in gaza(if not the largest) is not surprising.

Looking at children per families, will sort of validate these numbers. More children (together) than adult women, and if you add children and women it will total the same number of men casualties. Which is the same case with Israeli numbers. Children under 16 plus women will give you 128, which is almost half of the 300 total civilian deaths according to the IDF. Seems like both methods look accurate yet the total number differ greatly. A university professor being asked about his expertise? not surprising. Are you impress with IDF lawyers not answering question because of fears that they might be responsible 'internationally' about the actions of commanders in the field? totally related to lawyers of Bush and co. Cryptonio (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(indent)
I suggest you guys read this, where I demonstrate that some editors here really don't understand how a legitimate military target is defined in IHL.
According to HRW, a Hamas fighter is a legitimate target, whether he's shooting someone right now or not. HRW also says it is legitimate to target the home or office of a Hamas commander.
I was told that the ICRC defines it in some other way, but have yet to see the ref. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this talk page is not the article. Thanks anyways. Cryptonio (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda and psychological warfare

Mo way to graphically describe a disaster of sensibly blending of two roots

Why that heading? Israel spent a lot of money and made a lot of effort making thousands of phonecalls and dropping thousands of leaflets to warn residents of incoming attacks. Why is the 'warning' part left out, that was the purpose. Also, like I wrote in the article, but was removed, the warning mentioned that people who had terrorists and weapons hidden in their homes, or near the area, needed to leave before their houses were bombed. The IDF emphasised this to show that they weren't targetting civilians, that anyone associated with Hamas terrorists (sorry, militants), needed to disassociate themselves, i.e. get out of that area, and not get invlved with militants or storing their weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.35.19 (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That heading is there because the sources describe what is covered in that section as propaganda and psychological warfare. Nableezy (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence, was just about to start this section. So far, we have 'Before the end of the pre-conflict ceasefire, Hamas started boasting that it had countless surprises awaiting Israeli troops, should they advance' without source. Let me contribute a little:

If you are stupid enough to enter the Gaza Strip, we will fight you. You will face not only thousands of fighters but a 1.5 million people who will fight you, out of their desire to die the deaths of martyrs, Khaled Mashal at a press conference in Damascus, March 1, 2008.http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e028.pdf

If you commit a foolish act by raiding Gaza, we may have a second or a third Shalit, said Khaled Meshaal. If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you, you will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God. You entered like rats, added Hamas spokesman on Al Aqsa TV. Gaza will be a graveyard for you, God willing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/4077764/Hamas-threatens-black-destiny-if-Israeli-soldiers-enter-Gaza.html Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e037.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The exaggerated description of the IDF forces and their abilities was coupled by descriptions of alleged military “successes” which Hamas spokesmen were keen to boast of as the fighting was coming to an end. For example: a false announcement on abducting an IDF soldier on January 12, publications about a rocket attack (which never happened) on an IDF base 50 km away, the supposed destruction of 11 Israeli tanks, taking (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod, and more. Of particular note was the “victory speech” of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades spokesman Abu Obeida (Al-Aqsa TV, January 19), which was rife with false descriptions of the “heroic campaign and war of salvation” waged by Hamas. Thus, for example, according to Abu Obeida, no less than 80 (!) IDF soldiers were killed, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with the terrorists. Abu Obeida claims that the IDF is loathe to publish the real number of casualties, reporting instead that they died in car accidents (according to IDF Spokesman data, as at January 19 ten soldiers were killed during the operation, including four who died as a result of friendly fire ).http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e048.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hamas strictly forbids the publication of the names of its terrorist operatives who were killed during the fighting , especially since the ground operation began. http://www.rightsidenews.com/200901133351/global-terrorism/operation-cast-lead-update-no-12.html. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree this section is a POV toxic disaster. Kind of Vulcan mind meld of Propapsywar. Really, Nableezy. Reliable sources has nothing to do with that. Sceptic, thank you for new sources. To make things better we could:

1. Remove redundant stuff about "day before" and "surprise" - it is already discussed in Conflict Escalates.

2. Put relevant "Propaganda" stuff into Media. Calling Israeli media campaign (PR) a Propaganda is far from neutral. Some sources do that - Wikipedia should remain NPOV.

3. Break psywar stuff neutralized with new sources integrated between belligerents and make two Psywar subsection of Israeli offensive and Palestinian military activity.

This section needs serious work. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My aim was to put more weight to psy war Hamas leads. I think it deserves a separate subsection. I would like to see eventually all the headlines I provided: concrete threats and intimidations by Hamas seniors; hiding number of casualties; false claims of success and victory. Of course I wouldn't mind dispersing Israeli propaganda a bit.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to put Israeli psy war in the context. Some believed Israel wanted intimidate Gaza population, however others saw it as warning to civilians in Urban warfare battlefield. Additions of new sourced material usually undergo WP:BRD, so be bold and in case of revert feel free to discuss to satisfy fellow editors concerns. Is there any objection to structural article change? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is how it is percieved:

Before and during the Cast Lead Operation, Hamas' senior representatives released number of statements designed to intimidate Israeli decision-makers from launching any military operation in Gaza and to cause demoralization among Israelis. Speaking from Damascus on March 1, 2008, Khaled Mashal promised to fight any Israeli aggression with 1.5 million people who will willingly die deaths of martyrs. On the eve of the ground incursion by Israeli forces, Khaled Mashal presumed that if IDF launch ground offensive, black destiny and abductions await Israeli soldiers. Hamas spokesman added that with the God's help Gaza will become a graveyard to Israeli troops.

In an effort to boost the morale of its fighters, Hamas prohibited publishing photographs, names or details of those members of the resistance who got killed or injured in the fighting.

On the video launched on Al-Aqsa TV on January 10, showing the names of Israeli towns hit by rockets, it was implied Tel-Aviv is the next target and that 'all options are open'.

In the course of the operation, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters. For example, Hamas claimed on January 12 that IDF soldier was abducted; declared destruction of 11 Israeli tanks; took (false) responsibility for the fire that broke out at a chemical factory in Ashdod; hit an IDF aircraft over the northern Gaza Strip. Following the end of the fighting, Hamas proclaimed victory and estimated that no less than 80 IDF soldiers fell in Gaza, including 49 soldiers killed in direct clashes with its fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 14:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we separate a title for Smuggling Tunnels

Do smuggling tunnels need a standalone title. Some sources for Smuggling Tunnels. a recent Al Jazeera article says the tunnels are used for consumer goods impossible to acquire due to Israel's blockade.Gaza's tunnel economy stumbles by Al Jazeera, for the situation in 2003 Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF Kasaalan (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That info belongs in the articles Blockade of Gaza and 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire. The Squicks (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, also Israeli–Palestinian conflict exists, I will try to add information there too, but Blockade of Gaza has a wider scope, yet we should add this as a separate title in a summary style here too, since it is extremely important case and deserves its own title. Kasaalan (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the Blockade and Tunnels

Past

Underground War Gaza by Sacco for New York Times 23 MB PDF 2003 comic story

Palestinians face Gaza hardships 2006 article

Capturing Gaza's Hell TIME Multimedia 2006 photo story about situation in Gaza

Recent

Gaza's tunnel economy stumbles by Al Jazeera

Might be useful. Kasaalan (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please stop arguing about the real world issues here?

In no less than 3 sections on this page right now there are ongoing arguments about the real world issues that this article is supposed to cover. Now while many of you are very smart and articulate, I think we would all be better off not getting into who or what is actually right and focus on the article and the sources. We really dont need to have arguments on what is a civilian, what is a legitimate target, why Hamas or Israel are evil, why the sky is blue, or why cant the Bulls make a layup. Can we please try to restrict the discussion here to specific changes in the article based on reliable sources? Nableezy (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the general tone of your post, I don't see how it is possible to completely disintangle the broader issues from the article. Wikipedia guidelines are based on avoiding undue weight and presenting both sides for a neutral point of view. The 'Who is a civilian' commentary has gotten completely off track, but the central question- 'How do we weigh the IDF position when it is so contrary to what the rest of the world thinks? Is this non-neutral to give them so much attention?' is completely germane. The Squicks (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You said it better than me, we can talk about the issues as it relates to the article, but lets try to not argue about the actual issues. Nableezy (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is civillian and who is not is the core of the discussions. That is why the numbers differs, don't they. Kasaalan (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt matter. We say the numbers differ and what each side says is the correct definition, with outside views from notable third parties where possible. We dont argue over and decide which side is actually right. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree on the casualty stats. There isn't any right and wrong here. There are different methods that produce different results and those methods have different levels of support. We just have to explain it a bit and leave it alone. It's pointless to include information from sources that try to discredit one method by using the other method. It's like arguing about whether red or blue is better. It's red. As for arguing about the real world issues, I suppose it's unavoidable when the words we use often have ambiguous meanings in the real world and our RS are using the same terms in different ways. This is especially the case if people simply splice together strings of words from different reliable sources and assume that the meaning and information content is preserved unchanged. Examples would be to assume that HRW 'armed forces of a party to a conflict' = IDF 'Hamas armed forces' or to assume that ICRC 'directly engaging in hostilities' = IDF 'directly engaging in hostilities' or to assume that ICRC 'military target' = IDF 'military target' or to assume that HRW 'human shield' = IDF 'human shield' and on and on endlessly culminating probably in an utterly pointless discussion of what 'occupied' means. Whenever we use these terms, rather than pointlessly arguing over who is right we need to either very briefly explain the difference in interpretation or avoid the terms and use different words. 'Civilian' is one of the worst as it means different things to different people in different contexts which I assume is why the IDF prefer "uninvolved Palestinian". What I would like to see is a ban on all advocacy and moralising and a lot more 'writing for the enemy'. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The general tone of the Nableezy post is fine with me. However, I usually disagree with what some of the participants say, and this thread is no exeption. Small example. 'Who is civillian and who is not is the core of the discussions. That is why the numbers differs, don't they', asks Kasaalan. No, they don't. And this is not the core of the discussion. The core of the discussion is who really were killed and by whom. The article mentions the name 'Abu Zakaria al-Jamal'. I could not find him on PCHR list. Maybe you can?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That isnt the core of the issue either, the core issue is what do RSs say about the topics and how we should incorporate that into the article. Nableezy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Couldn't help teasing a bit. My constant thought is how to incorporate more reliable info in the article, to make it better. I got one problem. A lot of iseful (in my view of course) info can be found on NGO sites like INSS, that present authentic reliable information. That info doesn't make it to the mainstream RSs. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch Reports and News

• Human Rights Watch Reports, Rain of Fire, Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza (2009) (PDF, 6.08 MB) and Indiscriminate Fire, "Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip" (2007) (PDF, 4.11 MB)

First of all I am against removing HRW report from links, because their reports are high quality and referring civillian issues, while they don't even fond of Hamas. Under Cover of War Hamas Political Violence in Gaza Also a 2007 indiscriminate fire report should be added as a link, since the report explains happens before the crisis.

Second as a third party sources the relevant reports from all big Human Rights Organisations should be added including HRW, PCHR, Btselem or UN constitutions OCHAOPT

Israel Gaza Strike Main Page

Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) Events of 2008 World Report Chapter: Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (PDF)

Israel/Egypt: Choking Gaza Harms Civilians US, EU, Security Council Should Demand Greater Access for Food and Fuel

Israel/Gaza: International Investigation Essential UN Should Ensure Impartial Inquiry Into Serious Violations by Both Sides

Israel: Stop Shelling Crowded Gaza City Effect of 155mm Artillery Indiscriminate in Populated Areas

Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes Indiscriminate Attacks Caused Needless Civilian Suffering

Key points by labour.net UN: Gaza Humanitarian Situation Report

UNOSAT: Damage Assessment Overview For The Gaza Strip

UNOSAT: Damage Assessment Overview For Gaza City - Update 1

Do main page map includes above update. Kasaalan (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Female terrorists and medics - time to reach resolution

1. As I said on numerous occasions, CLA intent was to point out there were female terrorists, who tried to blew themselves up near the forces. You can not misquote him and argue they were female combatants or women engaged in hostilities. This is because someone who is not wearing uniform and hides an explosive belt beneath civilian cloth do not fit that paraphrase. They can be referred as women terrorists. This is what IDF argues and it belongs to disputed figures subsection. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Another current sentence in the article is: 'The CLA also stated that 9 of the 15 medics reported by the PMoH were "Hamas operatives".' This is disinformation. If you read carefully the article, you will see that it should be either 'CLA also stated that 9 medics reported by the PMoH were "Hamas operatives".' or 'CLA also stated that 9 of the 15 medics reported by the PMoH were "Hamas operatives", while in [some] other cases the reports of [medics'] deaths turned out to be false'. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304792018&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

3. The update on the medics' issue: An IDF investigation, conducted by Col. Erez Katz, focused on the targeting of health facilities, vehicles and medical teams. The probe discovered that out of seven medical personnel claimed to have been killed by the IDF, five were Hamas operatives, including a nephew of the Hamas health minister. Two were civilians. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710759267&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Four editors in my estimation were against(or showed disinclination - Myself, Sean, Nableezy and Squicks) the simplest of mention of these two females whatever. So i wouldn't keep on pushing this without further support in addition to you.

2. I don't care for your hair splitting. In a civil decor, I have no objection to your 'clarification'.

3. And the song remain the same. Do as you please in this matter. Cryptonio (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. For now, women terrorists go down. Medics will be updated according to #3.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick clarification though. It says Hamas Health Minister. Is that as in Gaza Health Minister or as in Four Stars General in charge of major surgery for the Hamas military wing? Cryptonio (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Health Minister in Gaza. http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/51-2009.html. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course this won't be counted as evidence, but attempts of sucide attacks are reported below on Jan. 6 and 10. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Aerial_strike_weapon_development_center+_Gaza_28-Dec-2008.htmSceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see that clarification in the article, even if it says Hamas Health Minister in the source. Perhaps put it in brackets or something accommodating of that nature. As I write this i haven't check your second para, but as i close this i will check out what you took the time posting for us to see, i'm sure is of some worth. Thanks bud. Cryptonio (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I won't be doing it now. Maybe tomorrow or on Sunday. No problem, Na'im senior will be addressed properly.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF Military Investigations

Someone added the following to the casualties section: 'The IDF "conceded that Palestinian civilians died because of mistakes in intelligence and targeting, but said the military did not find any case in which an Israeli soldier deliberately shot a civilian'. First, based on our previous discussios, I think it does not belong here. Maybe in disputed figures or anywhere else. The report itself is very interesting stuff, and most of its findings were reprinted in JPost and Arutz 7 News. Maybe it even deserves a subsection of its own. To mention just this sentence is taking things out of context. Here are some excerpts:

1. The IDF made several "intelligence and operational mistakes" during Operation Cast Lead that cost civilian lives, but overall operated in accordance with international law and in an ethical and professional way, Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Dan Harel said on Wednesday. The overall conclusion was that the army operated in accordance with international laws and made great efforts to minimize civilian casualties, Harel said.

2. The probes also uncovered a number of cases in which the IDF made mistakes in the midst of the fighting that led to the deaths of several dozen innocent Palestinians. Among the "intelligence and operational mistakes" was the bombing on January 6 of the Dawiya family home in the Zeitoun neighborhood in southern Gaza City, in which 21 people were reported killed. The probe, conducted by former Golani Brigade commander Col. Tamir Yidai, discovered that an intelligence mistake led the air force to target the wrong building.

3. While there are still some 70 teams probing various IDF units, Harel said that to date the military had not found a single incident in which an Israeli soldier purposely aimed and fired at innocent civilians. far fewer Palestinians were killed by an IDF mortar attack against a Hamas terrorist cell near a UN compound in Jabalya on January 6 than was originally reported. Palestinians claimed that more than 40 people were killed. The army investigation revealed that 12-17 people were killed and that at least five of them were Hamas terrorists who had fired mortars at IDF troops. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710758789&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

4. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh operated a command and control center inside Shifa Hospital in downtown Gaza City throughout Operation Cast Lead. Senior Hamas commanders also set up a command center in a Red Crescent Society clinic in Khan Yunis and used it as a detention center. An IDF investigation, conducted by Col. Erez Katz, focused on the targeting of health facilities, vehicles and medical teams. The probe discovered that out of seven medical personnel claimed to have been killed by the IDF, five were Hamas operatives, including a nephew of the Hamas health minister. Two were civilians. The probe also uncovered a number of cases during which Hamas used ambulances to transport operatives. Testimony by a Gazan medical worker and obtained by the IDF revealed how Hamas forced the Red Crescent to hand over medic and nurse uniforms for its operatives. the UN vehicle was used to transport a Palestinian anti-tank squad and was bombed after it unloaded the squad. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710759267&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

5. Perhaps the most controversial investigation was that conducted by Colonel Tamir Yedai into incidents in which civilians were killed. In the case of a bombing which killed senior Hamas terrorist Nazar Rian and fifteen other civilians, the IDF concluded that it had warned the residents of all houses in the area to leave, and that the air force had even carried out warning fire before the bombing. The IDF had not known that the civilians were present at the time of the bombing.The IDF Spokesperson's Unit emphasized that these experts' investigations are not a substitute for the main operational IDF investigation of the entire operation, which is continuing at various levels and which will be concluded by June. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130986

The report itself: http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/09/4/2201.htm. Recommended. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the sentence. In Israel's estimation only 295 civilians died. In israel's view, that is an acceptable range of collateral damage and to say the reasons why they died(intelligence breakdown/aim as a bit off that day) is not to actually admit any wrongdoing. Specially when it also says that it didn't find not even one occasion where a soldier shot a civilian, 'unwarranted'?!. We don't have to include half-witted remarks of wrongdoing or absolution by Israel's side specially when they dispute casualties. Cryptonio (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, in chess this !? means a questionable but apparently formidable move that requires further study. Where did I get that man! 'unwarranted'??? Those 295 were unwarranted, yet they only died because of mistakes. Cryptonio (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Emotions for a chessplayer are usually unhelpful. Chill out and think. Not all but some died of operative mistakes. Most died because Hamas and its leaders wanted them to die. It was Rayan's choice not to evacuate himself and his entire family, 'cause he wanted to become martyr (btw, the house where he stayed was not targeted because he was there, but because it served as weapons' storage). It was Hamas who chose to exploit civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shielding. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e028.pdf . When you manufacture rockets in your basement and launch them from you backyard, we can only wonder how come the collateral damage is that low. If it were Russian or Turkish Army, 3 weeks' death toll would have been not 1500 but 15000 or 150000 dead. And I don't think NATO with their bombings in 1999 could have done better.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not a chess player, I am a human being who plays chess. and to be a great chess player(as i am) you must be a good human being(you do the math).

Yae yae bud, I continued the line of thought in my head. It says 295 civilian fatalities. Does any of them(probably most of them) include the ones living next to a house that got targeted? You would consider them as being collateral damage of course. The operative fatalities were due not because they were intended targets, but because you know intelligence and the likes were dumbfounded etc. Now, this is me thinking here, thanks for telling me otherwise i wouldn't have gotten the memo, what is Israel's rationale for including fatalities that happened because people were next door to a targeted house, as "combatants" or the horror, as "non-civilian" casualties? That's whats bugging me. Because israel says, that with ample warning time, if they so choose to target a building with civilian in them, if the civilian failed to 'heed' the calls, then they became 'voluntary human shields' and no longer counted as "civilian" casualties. heck, under those 'guidelines' I'm surprise that there were almost 300 civilians casualties period.

But here is the straightforward question of the moment. Out of the 300, you said not all of them died by operational means. And none of them died because of 'unwarranted' israeli fire. Now, there is no category like "causalities due to Hamas shooting them" so we assume that all of these casualties were due to Israeli fire. So the question is, how did the rest died? Say 100 died because of malfunctioning equipment(I know how hard is to get replacement parts from the US) how did the rest died?(as per Israel count though, not your own "unfeasible" reasoning). Cryptonio (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A deep sigh and shrugging shoulder. I can tell you how Nizar Rayan's family died. I can tell you how daughters of Dr. Abu El-Eish got killed. http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/02/04/idf-investigation-results-dr-abu-el-eish-residence-4-feb-2009-1708-ist/. I might find and tell you more. But you know what? I'll tell you something different. Apropos math. When making statistics over PCHR list, I came more than once through the names of infants, couple of month dead. Do you think we the Israelis are proud or happy that they got killed? No. And I inderstand and in a certain way share your compassion towards those who got killed. What I am trying to do here is to put their deaths in a perspective as it is seen from Ashdod. Ashdod is placed just about 40 km from Gaza. Hamas there pledged in its charter to fight Zionist entity to the end (a very interesting document, refers to Elders of Zion btw) and throughout 20 years of its existence they 'achieved' a lot. So, if just for a minute, you'll take a look on the bigger picture, and not just on unfortunate and tragic victims, it will suffice for me for today. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's quite something for you to bring the doctor's family. The IDF thought that the daughters on the rooftop were spotters for militiants that were taking command from the house next door. Can you blame that on intelligence? not quite because is not like the soldiers are seeing one thing and people back home are telling them another. Misguided weapon? it was well guided towards the house, so no mistake of that kind there. So under what kind of mistake would you file their deaths?

No I am not saying that, in Israel's march to their destiny, they stop and take great pride every time an infant dies. That is not what I am saying. And to tell you the truth, because I am of not much worth in the bigger picture, you may very well feel more compassion for the dead than I do, and that is fine with me. What bugs me a great deal, is why when killing is easy, and business is good all around the world, does Israel feels it needs to justify its actions(and then spin them) to the world. why think that the world is easily misguided? easily deceived? Everybody says Israel has the right to defend itself, everybody believes that as well. But for some reason, not everybody believes that Israel is doing everything it can do, to avoid these senseless wars, to avoid feeding war-hungry hawks like Hamas, terrorist in your view, to avoid giving them a voice. This is the sticking point, why not sit down and say "We share your dream of homeland, because we too had a dream like that one day". Why not finally put all of this discussion to an end, and freaking agree, and make it happen, to a Palestinian state, with its own army like Israel has. It is more than obvious that Israel does not want for this to happen. Take a look at the current PM's views. "Financial partnership"? Economical relationship? WTH?. I am not a cynic. I am not going to care about Palestinians since I won't care about Israelis. this is not about choosing sides. if a case is brought to me, through public opinion, and you ask me to make up my mind, this is what happens. I am not arguing against Israel, I am not hearing just anti-israel arguments. I am simply against blindly giving my full support to Israel no matter what Israel does. i can't. I am not a cynic. I have to look at this and understand it, and the way i understand it, is not too far from how the majority does. ask anyone here who is not an Israeli, does Israel has the power to make the dream of a Palestinian Homeland possible? don't be afraid and ask the freaking question. Cryptonio (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid, you know why? My family is at stake here. As long as Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Homeland is, eh, impossible. Don't blame Israel: Hamas, the elected government of PA, rejected the Saudi initiative. http://mideast.blogs.time.com/2009/01/08/time-to-test-the-arab-peace-offer/. Even according to the Prisoners initiative, that is so popular as a proof of Hamas best intentions, Khaled Meshal told reporters in Damascus that Hamas agrees to a Palestinian state on pre 67 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital with genuine sovereignty, without settlements, but WITHOUT RECOGNIZING Israel. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-21-3751705046_x.htm. Salah al-Bardawil, a Hamas legislator, told Reuters: We said we accept a state in 1967, but we did not say we accept two states. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/middleeast/01hamas.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&ref=middleeast&pagewanted=all. Dr. Ahmed Bahar, acting speaker of the Palestinian parliament, stated that the Jews are cancer, and they and the Americans should be destroyed to the last person. http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html. Dr. Al Astal, Hamas senior and member of PA parliament, made clear that annihilation of Jews is a matter for our time, Holocaust is still to come. http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/03/jonathan-dahoahhalevi-calls-for-genocide/index.shtml. Hamas cleric Sheikh Muhsin Abu Ita stated on the Al Aqsa channel that the annihilation of the Jews is a wonderful blessing. http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD208708. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Everybody has a right to my opinion.

With all due respect to everyone, especially to Sceptic since his fear is perfectly justified in my view, the soapboxing should end here. The Squicks (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, Squicks, we were merely having a friendly conversation, weren't we?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then continue it on a Chan website. Or a LiveJournal. Or (...) The Squicks (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes friendly conversation.

That is what I call a cop out. You mean to tell me, that Israel, objected to Hamas objection at recognizing Israel? What is Israel looking for? recognition from the side who is asking for the same thing? Furthermore, that Hamas won't recognize Israel is not the same as saying the rest of the Palestinians won't either, specially when Hamas is not the main party at the negotiating table. So all those remarks on Hamas, at war with Israel, is not to prove the point that is the PALESTINIANS the one who don't want a homeland. come on?. I've yet to read, the approval of Israel to move back to 1967 borders, do you have anything on that? that may be a bigger point to deal with than Hamas refusal to state the obvious, let alone recognize anything. And if is statements what you bringing, don't you think that there are a ton of statements out there from Hamas saying they would recognize Israel? But even before Hamas came to the picture, you mean to tell me Arafat wasn't ready to recognize Israel, Abbas was not willing to more than just simply recognizing Israel? Hamas is what's been holding all of this back for all of this years? I don't know about that.

"Gideon Samet worried that Israel is "missing a window of opportunity" because the "prisoners' document" was "brushed aside by Jerusalem as a feeble trick." Gideon Levy urged that the hudna offer "should have sparked a wave of positive reactions from Jerusalem, just like the 'prisoners' document.' But Jerusalem's ear as usual is blocked to any sound that might advance the peace process." What the Israelis are offering is merely "a plan to perpetuate the occupation, only under conditions more convenient for Israel. Moreover, at the end of the convergence plan, if it is ever executed, even more settlers will live in the occupied territories than live there now." [26]

"Thursday, January 29, 2009

France summons Israeli ambassador over warning shots; US envoy calls to bolster Gaza truce PARIS/OCCUPIED-AL-QUDS: Hamas would recognise Israel if it withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, a French Jewish writer said this week after meeting the exiled leader of the Palestinian Islamist movement, Khaled Meshaal.

“He told me that Hamas was prepared to recognise Israel on the lines of June 4, 1967. He told me so several times,” Marek Halter told AFP on Monday.

The date refers to Palestinian demands for an end to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, captured in the 1967 war." [27]

And of course after the latest 'rumble' you can't expect conciliatory remarks from Hamas or any Palestinian for that matter. Perhaps Israel sees itself as the winners, and thus time appears to be on their side. There is no hurry they say. I think there is a meeting coming up soon. Let's see what happens, as in if anything different happens. Cryptonio (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To Squicks, Instead of reprimanding, why won't you tell us your opinion on the IDF investigations and links I provided. Can they contribute to the article? How? where? Same question to Cryptonio. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the report itself, and I added some stuff about it to Al-Fakhura school incident‎. As for here, I do not see anything particularly notable about it purely as a whole. After all, why wouldn't Israel state that everything it did was in according with international law. The Squicks (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a good way to start. But then, I have to ask you a question. If you found that the report is helpful on Al-Fakhura school incident‎, maybe it can contribute some insight to other issues as well, like Nizar Rayan, WP, Hamas operating from hospital and made use of medical and UN staff, etc.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF efforts to reduce civil death

This is to balance the phsycological warfare section.

Former British Army Colonel Richard Kemp (fought in Afghanistan with British Forces in 2003): "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." http://www.bicom.org.uk/videos/bbc-news--military-analysis.

I will remind those were calls and sms 15 minutes prior the attack, a knock on the roof tactics and humanitarian breaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/world/middleeast/11hamas.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

the Shin Bet security service actually telephoned residents of specific buildings and apartment blocks, giving them up to 15 minutes to leave the area. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3885990

The Israel Defense Forces has unveiled a new tactic meant to reduce civilian casualties, calling houses before they are to be targeted in order to give inhabitants time to flee the attack. Palestinians reported that in some cases, the caller leaves a message on their voice mail warning that the IDF will bomb any house where weapons are rockets are found and the owners of the houses will be the ones to suffer the consequences. The IDF has also used a sound bomb to warn civilians before striking homes. The IDF has also used what they are calling "roof knocking" operations, in which they inform the residents of suspected buildings that they have 10 minutes to leave the premises. In some cases, residents of suspected houses have been able to prevent bombing by climbing up to the roof to show that they will not leave, prompting IDF commanders to call off the strike. In these cases, Channel 10 reported Thursday, the IAF sometimes launches a relatively harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052260.html

The IDF took active measures to reduce civilian casualties, including the extensive use of leaflets and phone messages warning Palestinians to leave the area or to avoid potential targets. Civilian warnings also included the Israeli Air Force (IAF) "knocking" actions -- shots fired to alert building inhabitants of an imminent attack. While the efficacy of these measures is questionable given the military situation, the IDF did attempt to mitigate the effect of its actions on civilians. The IAF attacked a broad set of targets within Gaza, including leadership, infrastructure, smuggling tunnels, military facilities, roads, and rocket and mortar launch sites. These targets were not concentrated in designated military zones or areas, but often located near, next to, and within facilities that are normally civilian in purpose. There is good evidence that Hamas and other organizations made a conscious decision to place these targets in civilian areas. Israel chose to attack these targets and accepted the risk of collateral damage. But it did so with some substantial measure of accuracy. According to the IAF, 80 percent of the bombs used by the IAF were precision weapons, and 99 percent of the air strikes hit their targets. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3034

Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...you must pivot from this

"In a practice codenamed roof knocking, the IDF issued warning calls prior to airstrikes on civilian buildings. Typically, Israeli intelligence officers contacted residents of a building in which they suspected storage of military assets and told them that they had ten minutes to leave. Some of the attacks took place sooner than the warning suggested and many calls were not followed up with attacks.[97][98][99][100][101]"

Maybe due to late hour, I overlooked the sentence in the article. Still, there is a place to elaborate more on IDF efforts to reduce casualties: harmless missile at the corner of the roof, avoiding casualties but successfully dispersing the crowd; 15 min. to leave the area; extensive use of leaflets and phone messages.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus the actual Roof knocking article. Plus the Propaganda and Psychological section has nothing to do with casualties. Cryptonio (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

'Other calls warned people that they had just minutes to evacuate before they bomb the house'. I am not happy with this sentence. Maybe in some instancies it was minutes. According to links I provided, general practice was 10-15 minute. Side note, I had 45 sec. to enter safe room. Propaganda and Psychological section leaves negative impression on the IDF practices. I have to insert something positive. Concerning the leaflets, there were several types. One is: To the residents of the Gaza Strip. The IDF will act against any movements and elements conducting terrorist activities against the residents of the State of Israel. The IDF will hit and destroy any building or site containing ammunition and weapons. As of the publication of this announcement, anyone having ammunition and/or weapons in his home is risking his life and must leave the place for the safety of his own life and that of his family. You have been warned. IDF Command. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/IDF_warns_Gaza_population_7-Jan-2009.htm. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054539.html. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right. The problem is the Roof knocking article gets lost, it is almost invisible. I failed to see it. On the contrary, negative aspects of IDF practices are seen right away. What I would like to see eventually is a section on these or at least a clear link to the separate article. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You may find this helpful [28]

Oh the irony! look where it is...www.psyway.org :) Cryptonio (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How the subject is dealt with in the article is a result of a long discussion on the matter. We'll walk you through it, but there is ample evidence that Israel looks at those leaflets and phone calls in a different way. about time someone got a clue. proposals are king here though as you may already know. Cryptonio (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this, and I even saw somewhere that the translation was inaccurate. Nevermind. Did you see another version of the leaflet I inserted?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I watched first hand testimonies about the IDF calls to cellphones on TV, yet read in wikipedia that most of the calls are false, only 20-30 calls were for real. So that cannot be considered as a mere good will to reduce civillian count, but a more advanced psychological warfare tactic. Also you should all know if Palestinians leave their homes or Gaza, Israel never allows them to get back to their property again. "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." The sentence fully sounded as a joke to me, is he even an expert on the history of warfare or a Colonel. Is he working for IDF how can he know that for sure at the time he speaks during the heat of the battle.

"Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials: they could speak to someone such as Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British Army campaigns in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and was most recently senior military adviser to the Cabinet Office. Kemp told me that “Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle. Virtually every aspect of its operations is illegal under international humanitarian law – ‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”.

Colonel Kemp points out that if the IDF had no regard for civilian lives it would never have leafleted and telephoned residents in Gaza, warning them when it was about to attack their area: after all, that also gives Hamas notice – hardly the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. Similarly, the IDF’s unilateral commitment to a daily three-hour ceasefire to permit the evacuation (to Israel) of casualties, and for the passage of “humanitarian aid”, also allows Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks." No, we are not all Hamas now

What a cover up, sounds like a real IDF officer. So leafleting and phoning everyone in the area for evacuating their only homes and land in the world, and not letting them back in if they leave Gaza once, is not a part of psychological and cold warfare but an act of good will according to the Colonel. Kasaalan (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

For a real balance against a Colonel I present a Jewish Member of Parliament

"Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism Tzipi Livni's Father was a Terrorist" Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland. During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."

He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."

He accused the Israeli government of seeking "conquest" and added: "They are not simply war criminals, they are fools." YouTube - Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism : UK Jewish MP SIR Gerald Kaufman

I will try to find a full translation for the video, because lots of info missing in this summary. Kasaalan (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, Kasaalan. I heard this man. The problem is, he says merely words, without providing substantial evidence (let's stick to the operation).

Kemp, on the contrary, bases his case on evidencies you provided. Your problem is that you jump into conclusions. The info that most of the calls didn't result in actual strike is already in the article. So, the negative side is there. I am entitled to provide another side. Including the other leaflets and so on.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of terrorism, Arab terrorism in Palestine goes back to 1920s. Do you want to go that far or should we try to focus on the article?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

British MPs accuses Israel

BRITISH MPs yesterday lined up to give their strongest condemnation yet of Israel's actions in Gaza, branding Ehud Olmert's government "mass murderers" and calling for the country to face sanctions. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, faced cross-party demands for Israel's ambassador to be expelled from London and for Britain to recall its representative from Tel Aviv.

The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish.

Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."

He suggested the British government would have taken a more strident tone if it had been Hamas who had "slaughtered 900 Israelis". Cross-party fury of MPs at Israel

Again I am asking Do Kemp is an expert on the history of war. No he is not, so he is not capable of using such pretentious words anyway according to academic standards. Kemp on the contrary bases his case on false claims, because his claims proves nothing, that he haven't bothered to show any source to the claims anyway. Did he showed us any examination on how much Palestinians got fake text messages even though their home did not get hit. No. Then what, all we have is his prejudged claims in the heat of the battle, where he cannot check the info anyway, but talks like he is in command of IDF himself. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also if you heard the speech and you have good will why didn't you add the speech to the International_reaction_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict page since he is a former labour minister, and a jew member of parliament. Article is very clear, the source is extremely Israeli sided, has no expertise in the military of history, his proofs are not real proofs containing logical fallacy. Kasaalan (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I watched first hand testimonies about the IDF calls to cellphones on TV, yet read in wikipedia that most of the calls are false, only 20-30 calls were for real. So that cannot be considered as a mere good will to reduce civillian count, but a more advanced psychological warfare tactic.

Please read WP:OR. Kasaalan, to be frank, you don't seem to understand anything about Wikipedia. :/ The Squicks (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no original research, they already have proof on the cellphone texting by IDF, I just added I watched first hand testimonies on TV on the same basis, Also read on wikipedia that only 23 cases of the texted homes got attacked, again by a reference. So is it more likely to be texting 80 percent false warnings to be considered as psychological warfare, or good will. Or can you explain, how a colonel's words on an area which we don't have a clue if he has any expertise, we can consider Israel as world's most advanced army on civillian casualty prevention. So can you possibly explain, which of these sentences contain any original research. Kasaalan (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are taking several unrelated events and them artificially making a synthesis that is your opinion-- that of a gigantic evil conspiracy by the Israelis. Please, please read WP:OR. Exactly what you are doing is proscribed in there. The Squicks (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing in discussion page in this tone, because I cannot call all the efforts here as neutral, but more likely IDF sided opinions. I cannot and wont add any opinion piece to the main article likewise. Yet that doesn't mean I wont raise any objection to the IDF sided views, should be added in the article, without counter sources that are objecting them. Near all my sourced I provided, are eligible to be added as reliable references to the main article, so talking according to them, is not synthesis at all. I have already read original research fully months ago, and I will read again because you asked, but can you really read the sources I provided, that is your decision. Kasaalan (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To Squicks. In my view, elaborations I provided, including a small contribution from Times by Kasaalan, is eligible. Your opinion?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR won't quench his thirst. Kassalan, I don't think Sceptic has shown us any proposal yet(and there is no hurry either). So you can't totally be against something that is not up and running yet. Cryptonio (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I asked above, I am asking again does Colonel Kemp is an expert on the history of war, if he is not how can we present his words as reality. "There has never been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and death, than the IDF is doing today in Gaza." this is one of the boldest and pretentious claim that can be said on the issue among the ones I have came up with so far, that contradicts with the real world outcomes of the strike, one of the biggest civilian casualty numbers recently done. So even proposing this is being a bit sided, if it is not balanced by contradictory opinions. British MP made a very strong statement about Israel, its foundation, and its government against the colonel's whitewashing claims. Colonel's words are merely claims by the way since he showed no proof at all. So claim against claim, and there should be an extent to being POV, and that sentence even pushes that line. I cannot stand by against a whitewash like this, while Sceptic admitted that he heard the MP, yet did not even bothered to mention his words anywhere, while taking Colonel's words fully. So this is exactly not being neutral to the case, or balancing it. The MPs words not only about this case, it is related to all the discussions above, yet knowing the statement and not sharing this info, is what I cannot call as being neutral. So I am alright with the colonel's words to be added, yes merely words of his opinion and no proof at all, yet since he is advisor to the related issues for Britain Parliament, we should also include the words' of the former British Labour Minister, and Jewish MP Sir Gerald Kaufman no matter what. Since Colonel tries to whitewash IDF as one of the neatest army on history for preventing civilian casualty, let MP accuse them as mass murders, if we all try to be neutral to the case. Kasaalan (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple. Colonel Richard Kemp served in a military for almost 30 years, fought in both Iraq wars, was a Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan. The man has military expirience and I guess forces under his command didn't gave in-advance warnings and humanitarian breaks to civilians. Next, he is no way affiliated to Jews or Israel, he runs a neutral private security operation in London. The man is competent, and if he provides an insight that you don't like doesn't mean he is payed by IDF.

Neutrality of Sir Gerald Bernard Kaufman is disputed though. He became notorious in his anti-Israeli actions in 2002, saying similar words during Jenin 'massacre'. It turned out later that despite initial reports, 50 and not 500 were killed, most of them militants. So, in my view, you can bring whoever you like to accuse IDF of mass murder, as long as we distinguish between someone who is competent and neutral and someone who is biased politician. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all that is not an answer to my question, being a colonel for some years and in the army for 30 years does not make a person "an expert on military history". If he talks about history of military, that is something else. A 30 year taxi driver has no expertise in "history of taxis" or "history of transportation" for example, or we would have to call every taxi driver as history of taxi or history of transportation expert.

I don't have very deep knowledge on Jenin, but even if your claims on Jenin are true, you don't call where 50 people have been killed a massacre, what will you call as massacre I should ask first.

Also, if you claim Colonel Ken is competent to talk about military actions, Member of Parliement and former labour minister is more than competent to call Israeli goverment as mass murderers, since a colonel is not a high rank in military, yet a minister is like an army commander in politics, and government ruling. With years of political career in politics and goverment, Sir Gerald Kaufman, as an orthodox jew and a holocaust victim, has every right and competency to call Israel as he thinks, and as an editor, it is your duty to reflect this fact in the article, not to hide it to yourself. This is not a personal preference, you have no right to say a colonel is capable and MP/former minister is not. Kasaalan (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided about whether ot not Kaufman's words are usable in this context, but it must be pointed out that he is a former Jew- he used to be a Jew. Calling him "Jewish" is not accurate. Of course, I don't personally give a damn what his religion is: Being a Minister of the British Government at one point gives him weight. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you watched the video fully. Thanks for the info, if he is former Jew we should mention it like that, I will search about that issue too. I will also try to find a full translation of the text first. Kasaalan (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way the colonel's words are word famous since near every IDF supporter quoted it, and Israel even tried to justify their actions quoting the words in UN council as far as I recall. Kasaalan (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings here. But for NPOV balance, I would support adding both Kaufman and Kemp's statments together [so long as neither is given unfair, better treatement than the other].

he is former Jew we should mention it like that Wouldn't it be best to just sidestep the issue entirely? Mention his name and his rank in the British system. We can leave his religion out of it. Just because someone has a certain religion, that does not make him any more (or less) reliable as a witness! The Squicks (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well he mentions her Jewish grandmother on the speech, so if he does not believe in Jewish religion maybe we should mention it maybe not, but as a race he is Hebrew or Jewish so he might be considered as Jewish, maybe we should take opinion by more knowledgable users on the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see why him not being Jewish affects whether or not his opinion is more valid or less vaild. This is silly. The Squicks (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He is Jewish and former Zionist, btw. Again, you can bring whoever you like, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, whoever. All their sayings are irrelevant to my point. From Israeli narrative, IDF went to lengths to spare lives of civilians in Gaza, and colonel Kemp (not a private) explains exactly how. This subject is not covered in the article, only Palestinian narrative, claiming that it did more damage than help. Kemp is not the central issue to this section, I provided more on the same includng The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. I will come up with concrete proposal laer.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Transcript of the talk

Also first of all we should fully transcript the talk.

BBC Interviews Col. Richard Kemp on Civilian Casualties Resulting from Israel’s War on Hamas January 9, 09

Transcript provided by Jock Falkson

“I think Israel has very little choice other than to carry on with its military operations until it reaches the conclusion it needs which is to stop Hamas from firing rockets at its people in its territory.

“It has set out on this operation to do that and the civilian and military deaths on all sides of course are absolutely tragic. But Israel doesn’t have any choice apart from defending its own people.

“Until such arrangements are in place, not just for Hamas to accept that they must stop attacking Israel territory, but also that any such agreement is enforced. Until those arrangements (are enforced) Israel has no choice but to completely dominate the area.

“I think – I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation, I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.

“When you look at the number of civilian casualties that have been caused, that perhaps doesn’t sound too credible – I would accept that.

“However, Hamas, the enemy they have been fighting, has been trained extensively by Iran and by Hezbollah, to fight among the people, to use the civilian population in Gaza as a human shield.

“Hamas factor in the uses of the population as a major part of their defensive plan. So even though as I say, Israel, the IDF, has taken enormous steps - and I can tell you about some of those if you’re interested - to reduce civilian casualties, it is impossible, it is impossible to stop that happening when the enemy has been using civilians as a human shield.

Interviewer: (“But what about) the criticism of UN eyewitnesses who talk about a house where people were advised to move for safety and 24 hours later it was bombed by Israel?”

“Well of course I can’t really comment on the detail of that – I don’t have any of the facts available on that. And I have no doubt that any allegations like that will be looked into very seriously by Israel.

“Of course, the Israel Army operates under a strict code of conduct and are answerable to the Israeli government and the Israeli courts. And if it turned out that there was a deliberate crime committed I have no doubt that the people would be held to account. They would be answerable to an Israeli court.

“But of course, it’s not just a matter of the IDF trying to prevent casualties in a situation where the enemy is using them as a shield, but it’s also ... war itself.

“The whole nature of war, any military commander will tell you this, war is chaos. War is full of mistakes. There’s friction all over the place and if you just take for example the way we operate in Afghanistan and in Iraq, we operate – our British forces operate in Afghanistan and in Iraq - there have been innumerable mistakes by the British, the American and by all the forces. These things do happen, it’s a real tragedy but it’s just what happens when you go to war.” Source

Maybe helps. All of his claims are easily falsifiable by other parties' proofs, as I told before all of the 1200 cases where PCHR took to the Israeli courts by the year 2003, non of the IDF personnel found to be guilty. There are strict reports by HRW and other human right organizations, on the non-transparent investigations of Israel. When the reporters asks about UN eyewitnesses, he claims he doesn't know, then he says he is sure, Israeli government will punish them if they are guilty. What a trust on IDF and Israel, without a doubt. But hold Hamas fully responsible of the civilan casualties, because IDF defends its own people, deaths are inevitable, and Hamas is using civillian as human shields. What a great logic. So why Israel don't let civillians go out of Gaza till the operation ends, and then let them come back. So at least don't tell me Colonel is anti-Israel by any means currently. Kasaalan (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope Kasaalan does not interpet me moving this transcript itself to its own section as an insult to him. I only did it for ease of reading. The Squicks (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry sub sectioning helps ease of editing and reading, I won't be easily offended like that. Kasaalan (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that if someone says something good about X you have to add something bad about X in order to be neutral is absurd.
Kaufmann doesn't have any military qualification whatsoever as far as I can see.
You're trying too hard. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kaufman has the high political qualification to accuse Israeli government, as mass murderers. Also colonel has no expertise in military history whatsoever. Moreover as you read the transcript you can easily see he takes the situation as 1 sided and that is limited to IDF view only. So presenting him as a 3rd party is not logical in any way. Also except some limited cases, his claims and thoughts only covers his personal thoughts, he showed no proof, actually also as his vague thoughts like "I think – I would say that from my knowledge of the IDF and from the extent to which I have been following the current operation", "Well of course I can’t really comment on the detail of that – I don’t have any of the facts available on that", "When you look at the number of civilian casualties that have been caused, that perhaps doesn’t sound too credible – I would accept that" and "And if it turned out that there was a deliberate crime committed I have no doubt that the people would be held to account", simply shows that he doesn't have the knowledge for the situation requires at the time of speaking, and he is only reflecting his perceptions and personal thoughts, and near no facts at all. Kasaalan (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also Sir Gerald Kaufman might be a shadow minister instead an actual minister, so I will search on that matter too. Kasaalan (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "high political qualification"? What qualification does it take to be a politician other than lack of morals and a taste for corruption? Seriously, all you need to be a successful politician is to be a good talker and a good deal-maker. It doesn't give you any particular insight into world affairs, unless these happen to be related to something specific you came about in your work. This goes for politicians the world over, not specifically Kaufman.

It seems to me the only qualifications Kaufman has relevant to this discussion is being an anti-Zionist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Full Transcript

Youtube video and full text of the speech

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I was brought up as an orthodox Jew and a Zionist. On a shelf in our kitchen, there was a tin box for the Jewish National Fund, into which we put coins to help the pioneers building a Jewish presence in Palestine.

I first went to Israel in 1961 and I have been there since more times than I can count. I had family in Israel and have friends in Israel. One of them fought in the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and was wounded in two of them. The tie clip that I am wearing is made from a campaign decoration awarded to him, which he presented to me.

I have known most of the Prime Ministers of Israel, starting with the founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Golda Meir was my friend, as was Yigal Allon, Deputy Prime Minister, who, as a general, won the Negev for Israel in the 1948 war of independence.

My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.

On Sky News a few days ago, the spokeswoman for the Israeli army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of, at that time, 800 Palestinians—the total is now 1,000. She replied instantly that 500 of them were militants.

That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose that the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.

The Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asserts that her Government will have no dealings with Hamas, because they are terrorists. Tzipi Livnis father was Eitan Livni, chief operations officer of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi, who organised the blowing-up of the King David hotel in Jerusalem, in which 91 victims were killed, including four Jews.

Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism. Jewish terrorists hanged two British sergeants and booby-trapped their corpses. Irgun, together with the terrorist Stern gang, massacred 254 Palestinians in 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin. Today, the current Israeli Government indicate that they would be willing, in circumstances acceptable to them, to negotiate with the Palestinian President Abbas of Fatah. It is too late for that. They could have negotiated with Fatahs previous leader, Yasser Arafat, who was a friend of mine. Instead, they besieged him in a bunker in Ramallah, where I visited him. Because of the failings of Fatah since Arafats death, Hamas won the Palestinian election in 2006. Hamas is a deeply nasty organisation, but it was democratically elected, and it is the only game in town. The boycotting of Hamas, including by our Government, has been a culpable error, from which dreadful consequences have followed.

The great Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, with whom I campaigned for peace on many platforms, said: You make peace by talking to your enemies.

However many Palestinians the Israelis murder in Gaza, they cannot solve this existential problem by military means. Whenever and however the fighting ends, there will still be 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and 2.5 million more on the west bank. They are treated like dirt by the Israelis, with hundreds of road blocks and with the ghastly denizens of the illegal Jewish settlements harassing them as well. The time will come, not so long from now, when they will outnumber the Jewish population in Israel.

It is time for our Government to make clear to the Israeli Government that their conduct and policies are unacceptable, and to impose a total arms ban on Israel. It is time for peace, but real peace, not the solution by conquest which is the Israelis real goal but which it is impossible for them to achieve. They are not simply war criminals; they are fools. Source: House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jan 2009 Youtube Video

Full transcript, Kaufman also criticizes and accuses Hamas, yet minimal as expected since the civilian death toll is 60-230 times in favor of the Israel currently. [If 4 Israeli civilian and 236-926 palestinian civilian are dead] Kasaalan (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Civilians as belligerents

Resolved

I'd be interested in reviewing the reasoning for this change. Could someone please direct me to the discussion where the civilians of the Gaza strip were agreed upon as belligerents? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip was agreed upon. It doesnt say "the civilians of the Gaza Strip". Like it doesnt say "the civilians of Israel". Search the archives, you'll find it. Nableezy (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy,

It's very difficult to collaborate when it feels as though you are making every effort possible to not collaborate. I'm concerned that the Israeli military is cited on one side, but a locality which includes 1.5 million civilians is cited on the other. You've stated that past consensus exists and I'm willing to accept this statement and review past reasoning for this consensus to consider re-evaluating my perspective on what seems to be an error. I'd appreciate it if you link to past discussions so that the content of said consensus could be evaluated.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have to search for it just like you, and as I was just awoken by a call for work, I'm going back to sleep, not going through the archives. Nableezy (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you want it to say 'principally Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades' instead of 'principally Hamas' thats fine, but we say Israel (IDF) on the other side, not just the IDF. Nableezy (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I can see where the current structures works well enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

About Lorenzo Cremonesi's statements

Cremonesi's statements about estimated casualties and violations of human rights of Gazan civilians by Hamas can be found on the external links listed by myself.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

LiveLeak is not an acceptable source. And rules about NPOV and placing due weight on given statements mean that Cremonesi's ideas, if included, only merit around two or three sentences... not four paragraphs. The Squicks (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about LiveLeak, but what about the other three sources? I think that the BBC, The Jerusalem Post and Israel Today are acceptable sources. Cremonesi's statements are also mentioned here and here, so I think that this information should be included; there is a big difference between 500 to 600 deaths and 1,100 to 1,500 deaths. If the estimates given by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, the Israel Defense Forces and the Gaza Strip-based Palestinian Ministry of Health (controlled by Hamas) are cited, why not those of Cremonesi? I think that this issue should have been discussed before removing the information added by myself.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You didnt address the major concern, which was undue weight. His numbers are his own, and when we didnt have official numbers from the Israelis or Palestinians they were useful. Both sides say more than 1300 dead, do you have a reason why we should also include this one reporters number? Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think this is getting undue weight, then by all means, edit it down to what you think gives it reasonable weight. Don't go and just delete it. It's from an RS and gives important perspective on some possible reasons for the discrepancy between the official numbers by someone who was on the ground during the conflict. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We have been through this before, this information was once in the article. There was consensus to remove it as we got the official numbers from each side. Due weight here is no weight. Not every little piece of information you find on google needs to be in an encyclopedia article. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you justify keeping this content that is based on one reporters opinion? An opinion that has been disproved by all involved parties. The IDF says 1100+, yet you want to dedicate multiple paragraphs to this. Can you give a single rational reason why a single sentence should appear about this outdated and inaccurate number. Again, a number that nobody recognizes as having any validity. This does not belong in the article, and instead of making an actual argument you just re-revert it. Nableezy (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Partially agree. Indeed, this is no help for fatalities issue (even though empty beds is interesting finding in itself). However, his report and evidencies he recorded might be helpful in other sections. 'Palestinians told Cremonesi of Hamas operatives donning paramedic uniforms and commandeering ambulances'; 'A woman spoke of Hamas using UN buildings as launch pads for rockets'; 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292938156&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in the line that we had back before it was agreed to take it out. Please do not reinsert 5 paragraphs dedicated to a single reporter. We can go over the rest of what Sceptic said in another section and where it might fit. Nableezy (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS stating, among other things, that the Hamas was using civilians as human shields, that they used schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings and other densely inhabited locations to launch attacks, that they arrested, tortured and killed supposed political opponents, and that a certain doctor told him certain things about the dead and wounded.

It is not about the reporter, it's about the report from a RS. If you'd like to condense all that information (much of which is corroborated by other RSs, by the way) into a few lines, by all means, do so. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza is a city, so wherever armed militants would hide behind or over should be either "schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings" or any other type of building anyway, I am not sure how this should be called human-shielding this is regular guerrilla warfare in a city, do IDF really have to bomb a house where civilians living while they invading a city covering behind safe tanks. That is no good reason for me. On the instant a militant stays in a clear area, a jet will bomb him, you cannot expect anyone to throw himself as a clear target. Hamas has near no heavy arms that can even penetrate the tanks anyway. If IDF really like to clear Hamas that much and don't harm civillians, why don't they send troops for 1v1 fights with rifles. But bombing them afar along with civilians, is much more easy for them. If Hamas is human shielding, then IDF is human targeting. Try to be fair for the situation. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and WP:OR. Your personal views on the situation notwithstanding, if a RS reports that, for example, Hamas was using schools, mosques or public buildings to launch military attacks thereby rendering these buildings legitimate military targets according to the laws of war, that should be reflected in this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you actually justify your reverts, or is that asking for too much? Nableezy (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

An article with the propogandastic "massacre" placed in the lede is not unduly weighted when it provides ample discussion on the amount of dead. The Israeli number's shouldn't preclude anything. After all, Shimon Peres himself was hoodwinked in another "massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

welcome back, but why include this number from somebody that is rejected by both sides? Nableezy (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nab, but as you're well aware it's the reliable sources that rule the day around here. And as outlined above these types of discrepancies on both sides are not unprecedented.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sources rule, but the report of a single reporter gets the same treatment as the numbers used by the governments of each side which get thousands of times greater weight in the sources? This is a number from the middle of the fighting, that both sides confirm is low. The IDF has confirmed 1100+ dead, yet we dedicate paragraphs to somebody who based his numbers on how empty the hospitals felt to him? Nableezy (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cremonesi is mentioned at length, violating undue weight for just one reporter, whose rushed testimony gets several lines. Secondly I can't see where the page sources his comments. Where are the footnotes to the articles he wrote (he wrote many, and several could be quoted to give different impressions)?Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the death tolls given by the IDF, the PCHR and the PMoH don't necessarily imply that Cremonesi's statements aren't relevant. He's an experienced reporter who works for an internationally renowned newspaper. He allegedly was on the ground, interviewed Gaza Strip's inhabitants and a doctor, visited hospitals and witnessed relevant facts, something that wasn't made by other journalists of the international media and investigators of the ICRC, HRW, AI, UNRWA,... If we trust the media and these organizations, who didn't base their figures in exhaustive investigations on the ground, but in Palestinian or Israeli sources (specially those of the Palestinians), and then we say that Cremonesi's statements are necessarily wrong or irrelevant, I think that something fails here.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)