Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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."[1]

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: [2] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of

• I've made a few changes to the lead which were all reverted.[3] 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[4]) 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) - [5]. 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"[6]) 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"[7] -- 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[8] 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"([9]) 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 [10] at June 14 2007 and formed new "emergency government" headed by Salam Fayyad. Legitimacy of such step was disputed by some sources [11]. 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)

Then why have a Parliament? and have elections to elect a Prime Minister? Cryptonio (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. In Palestinian National Authority political model there are a Parliament, a President and a Government. AFAIK, President of the Palestinian National Authority has an authority to dissolve governments and appoint "emergency" one. Civil war sounds like an "emergency" to me. I'm not sure what is Parliament role in such scenario though. I also would not hold my breath till new round of elections in 2010 (??) in Gaza at least. From political role play point of view, reminds me of Tzippi Livni anecdote. She is going to be a Prime Minister (ha-ha), since she's leader of largest fraction in Israeli Parliament after 2009 elections. But Shimon Peres choose Benjamin Netanyahu to form a government and Parliament agreed :) Bottom line forming government is an important step. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be no denying that Hamas is the governing authority of the Gaza Strip. That is equivalent to saying Hamas is the government of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Livni was going to have problems setting up a majority(somehow) etc. Hamas had a pretty good hefty majority of seats. But you are unto something, at least when it comes to understanding what WENT ON between the PNA and FATAH. It seems, since the same people in Fatah were the ones in the PNA, no such 'conflict' like the one you have presented mattered. But now, since is Hamas the one in charge in Gaza, I wouldn't be surprise if you came up with more arguments to posture yourself by your position. Cryptonio (talk) 05:45, 30 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.[12] 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."[13]
  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.[14]

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[15] and the "hitting people upside their heads with the gavel"[16] 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'[17] is exceedingly more common than 'Gaza Massacre'[18] 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)

I can't say I'm able to follow your logic explanation. Hamas and the Arab world calls it mostly a War, not a massacre so I had no intentions on bringing in a side C. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like you did bring side C into the equation. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"Victory"

There is clear association between victory and parade. God save the Queen. 8 out of 10 best quality of life countries according to UN are constitutional monarchies. Those french bastards got us all confused ;)

many sources put victory in quotes since it is silly. we could add a line to explain it, get rid of it, keep it as is, or all sorts of other craziness. thoughts? ding ding...Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as the sources do not support it. The first source, when actually using the words, is not using it as a name. The second source says a victory in Gaza, taking about it rather then naming it, nowhere in the last source does the phrase appear. But a certain stalking editor is trying to get me blocked for 3rr infractions, so I'm going to stay away for now. Nableezy (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it until it is resolved.Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My main thought is that the lede looks absurd now. There are two sides to this conflict. Side A calls it X, side B calls it Y. The rest should go in the body someplace. I'd say "Israel calls it cast lead (he), Hamas calls it the gaza massacre (ar). It is also known as the gaza war (he+ar)" should cover everything. If someone calls it a victory or a defeat or a tie or whatever, put it in the body under "other names for the conflict". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

amazing how much you agree with me. Nableezy (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Screw you hippie! :) Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite yet, maybe one day be able to call me that ;) probably not tho Nableezy (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how archive 17 slipped under my radar. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The archives are a magical place, full of lollipops and leprechauns, and even once in a while a good idea, and even rarer an agreement on a good idea. The only problem is, if somebody were to read through all of them their head would explode out of the amount of sheer nonsense that they would have overloaded their brain with. Nableezy (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to go on record saying that the archive system sucks balls. Yes, I said balls. There should be, at the very least, a mechanized voting system where you press a button, your vote goes on record and the system can display previous votes somewhere where I don't have to go digging in 5234 pages of archives.

Someone else should invest the time in implementing this, naturally. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that if there's a consensus stated here, then you shouldn't need to violate 3RR as you can simply leave the edit which goes against consensus alone whilst reporting the user who is going against consensus to the proper forum. Simply add a dispute tag to the page or after the line in question in the meantime. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

true that, and no worries, you shant see me at that forum again (hopefully) Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warning. I'm sorry to break this brotherhood in arms "edit war" festival, I have to disagree. The end of this conflict was celebrated by victory parade in Gaza and it is an official position of rulers of Gaza. We can not just ignore it. Internationally this position was welcome in Syria, Iran. Indeed there are sources in the archives. I did not really get reasons for removal, I'd like to restore it. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they claimed victory, they did not name it the Gaza victory though. Nableezy (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The official name in the Arab world is "Gaza War". I have no objection to a version that only keeps the most common name. Anyways, "Victory" is as much a name as is the "Massacre" naming convention. They are both Mukawama driven and they compliment each other. To be frank, I feel as though several editors on this space are in violation of NPOV and it's always disheartening to see such a thing. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'official name'? On what basis do you say that? We have quotes from Hamas officials using Gaza massacre as the name. Hamas has called the conflict the Gaza massacre. They have not called the conflict the Gaza victory, I showed why the sources dont support that. But instead of actually showing why I would be wrong you just make a blanket statement not at all supported by the sources. Nableezy (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And as far as in violation of NPOV, I agree some editors are, but I think we have very different opinions on which editors those are. Nableezy (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally for me "Victory" + "Massacre" made a perfect match together and finally got me to say "A-ha" on categorization of later term. Not that Jaakobou did not say it implicitly. I reviewed the sources and indeed the outcome is "Victory". "As we won the Gaza war ..." said Hamas political bureau chief. So English Al Jezeera and Hamas politbureau chief use Gaza war name for this conflict as an event. Looks to me that NPOV way is to move "Gaza Massacre" to Propa-psy section of this article. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

uhh no. Gaza massacre has been used as the name by Hamas. The names each government used is in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Nableezy in this source the government used Gaza War name. Are not you confused? Clearly propose to leave lead with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda. Is not it a NPOV style organization of the article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple sources with quotes from Hamas calling the event the Gaza massacre, in both English and Arabic. No, I am not confused. I know what you propose, and it will not fly. This has been proven time and time again that the name Hamas used for the conflict is the Gaza massacre. Nableezy (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast. massacre expression was widely used, not only by Hamas but also by Fatah, Hugo Chavez and Oxford student hippies. Now it's also proven that Hamas did not give massacre name any exclusive rights. Do you agree that using massacre is kind of Propaganda?

By who? Wikipedia? No. We present it as the name used, which it was. Nableezy (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Get that "massacre" garbage out of this "victory" discussion! I have no problems adding in info on them spinning PR or whatever it was but it would deserve a complete line or two of text in another section that it fits into better. I know we are supposed to let facts speak for themselves but this victory "title" that you want to use has plenty of sources discussing it in context.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that the concepts 'full victory', 'Pyrrhic victory', 'inconclusive', 'partial defeat' and all the rest are directly related to the end of the conflict, why wouldn't it belong in that part of the article. The lead is bloated enough already. The Squicks (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rituals have formed a part of human culture for tens of thousands of years. Rituals can aid in creating a firm sense of group identity. Some say ceremony is kind of Propaganda. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, Squicks, and Cryptonio= I stopped having an imaginary friend when I was 8. Why couldn't you? Trifecta: We don't necessarily support Gay Marriage, but we are not against it either, why have beef with us ah?

In that case, let's take a look at why Israel would copy a page from the US in 'naming' its military operations. In short, it is a way to de-barbarize or take the "spiciness" out of what is actually going on. Imagine Bush going live on national tv saying something like "We are going to use 300 F-16s and a few Marines and kill everybody who gets in their way". Yeah, Americans are pretty much militarized and that phrase wouldn't have brought much condemnation from the general population, but it would have caused trouble when the "coalition" comes into the equation. So, a name more acceptable like "Operation Iraqi Freedom" gives it a more noble connotation(plus all that crap about bringing democracy etc to Iraq). So that Israel calls its "operation"(as given it a more 21st century karma, as in "war is acceptable" "war is a necessity etc) some chump change like "whatever" takes away the reality and concentrates its population with the "goals" or to ask for acceptance from the population to something that these military geniuses conjured up as a solution to the problems. That Hamas calls it a massacre is, in their view, kind of humbling("gee, we just got out butts, umm, you know..."). that we human beings behave like animals is nothing new. And that both sides have reasons why to call their actions in one way or the other is nothing new either. Mebleh. Cryptonio (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hands of Karma Cryptonio! I made a research about Nonviolence and Ahimsa, Go Ghandi, colonies should burn in hell! Here is copy paste from Hinduism view on Self-defense, criminal law, and war: The concept of ahimsa as expounded in the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors. In the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in the impending battle. According to this interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and fighters who die in battle go to heaven. The apparent conflict between ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has often been resolved by resorting to allegorical readings. Such readings are based on Theosophical interpretations and were notably represented by Mahatma Gandhi, who made clear throughout his life and his own commentary on the Gita that it was "an allegory in which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling against evil." According to some interpretation of Islam, Jihad struggle is a spiritual one against enemy within, in fact Jihad is an integrated part of Nonviolence tradition. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to like you bud. Yae yae, holy books are one thing, reality is another. Isn't Islam about peace? yet mess with them and watchout! I don't make apologies either for Buddhist, we all like and enjoy wars(except me, of course). But notice, for example, similar anti-pacifism connotation even in the New Testament. Revelation 3:15

"15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: "

The explanation being, that good and evil are clearly defined(and not by Israel), but that doesn't mean that everything in between is gray area, AND NOT SUBJECT TO JUDGMENT(in all three of Abraham's faiths). Arjuna is not weak, nor a non-believer(infidel) he is refusing to fight, but, he's standing right next to khrishna(the all within the all, in Buddhism) and telling him that ultimatley, above rules and regulations(laws) his word is final, because it is not logic that brings us closer or seperates us from "The Being". In other other words, and this quote I can quote from any faith, Romans 6:16

"For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

What this means, we are our own masters as long as we serve, because no matter who we serve, we will be looked at us servants. And then of course, Mohammed is who he is because he was a servant. So don't be too hard on peace. There is purpose for both, peace and war, but we should look after one and despise the other(by the New Testament).

We could get down with the Torah, if its more of your preference, but nice work on Buddhism/Hinduism. Cryptonio (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Which brings up this other point. Atheist get all over Christians for believing in the "barbarism" in the Old Testament(as if they had anything to do with the Old Testament) but they give Jews a free pass. I mean, the only reason that i could fathom for a Christian pastor to bring up the Old Testament in front of a congregation, is to bring up people like King David. BUT HOW MANY PEOPLE DID KING DAVID KILLED!!! But then, of course, this correlates my previous point on what Krishna is telling Arjuna. Cryptonio (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can not be civil taking about David dude. He was a real bastard. The prophet Nathan confronts David, saying: "Why have you despised the word of God, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife." Some call it love though ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yae yae, but that David took Bathsheba is not quite the point, because David had concurbines and whatnot. But it is more of a testament to Uriah than David's actions(since he is King, and I will provide reference on this in a minute). You must notice, rather, what Nathan tells David earlier.

"There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2The rich man had very many flocks and herds, 3but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children. It used to eat of his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his arms,[a] and it was like a daughter to him. 4Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him." 5Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan,(C) "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, 6and he shall restore the lamb(D) fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity."

David's "adultery" is not what David himself is condeming, rather that a rich man took the only valuable possesion that a poor man had. And notice that even the death of Uriah isn't an issue, after he was a military man and military man die, eventually.

But now to the point i said i would pick up later. I am not of the opinion of condemming David or judging him, I think you overstreched yourself a bit. Notice here. 2 Samuel .

4And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

5And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?

6And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

7And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.

8And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.

9He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.

10So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

11Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him:

12And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.

13And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.

14And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?

15And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

16And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD's anointed.

So, I wouldn't say negative stuff about Prophets. But that's just me though. Cryptonio (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Herod the Great, Attila the Hun and "Hungarian Notation"

File:HerodtheGreat1.jpg

WTF? Massacre of the Innocents is not just a name. Ding dong.

Hungarian notation is a naming convention in computer programming, in which the name of a variable indicates its type or intended use. Apps Hungarian notation doesn't encode the actual data type, but rather, it gives a hint as to what the variable's purpose is, or what it represents.

• strName : Variable represents a string ("str") containing the name, but does not specify how that string is implemented.

Most, but not all, of the prefixes Simonyi suggested are semantic in nature. The following are examples from the original paper:

Herod (Template:Lang-he Horodos, Greek: Template:Polytonic Hērōdēs), also known as Herod I or Herod the Great (37 BC – 4 BC in Jericho), was a Roman client king of Israel. Christian scripture reports Herod perpetrating the Massacre of the Innocents, described in Chapter 2 of the Gospel according to Matthew. Most recent biographers of Herod do not regard the massacre as an actual historical event.

Back to Simonyi. There are RS reports he was Hungarian. In his role naming convention inventor he would not argue that epitome of cruelty and rapacity would be semantically appropriate name for Attila the Hun. Ding Dong ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly propose to leave lede with Operation and War and move Massacre to Propaganda. Is not it a NPOV style organization of the article? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring everything but the last comment, no it is not a 'NPOV style organization of the article'. We have the names the government of each side used, Cast Lead and Gaza massacre. That is what NPOV is. Nableezy (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Factually, with all due respect ( and there is a respect ) the Gaza government used Gaza War name. I kind of concerned about semantics and hint of purpose, or what it represents. The massacre expression is used a lot all right! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have one instance of him using "Gaza War", and I would like to see the Arabic of that statement to see if he said the war in Gaza, war on Gaza or what. We have multiple quotes of them using the Gaza massacre as the name in both the original Arabic and the reported translations. You cannot just disregard what you want, there are a ton of sources of Hamas using Gaza massacre as the name of the conflict. Nableezy (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody argues that many (we should not single Hamas out) used massacre rhetoric as you put it. What is "Hamas name" is disputable. So in your opinion, principally Wikipedia should not see this interesting naming convention as Propaganda technique? Just a name, common, you hippie! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide what is propaganda or not. You should know this by now. Gaza massacre is the name used by Hamas, we have a number of sources that show that to be the case, and no matter how often you repeat the same irrelevant argument it remains irrelevant. I dont plan on dealing with this anymore except to say if you want to change what has been in the lead for going on 4 months get consensus. Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I see this massacre rhetoric sparking and venting all the way. Wake up, this is not a consensus. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouting NO doesn't mean much, sorry. Consensus is based on editing and the strength of your arguments. You, nor anybody else, has presented a policy based argument for removing it. Nableezy (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been regurgitated ad nauseum, but I have no problem continuing to put my two cents on the record. There never was a consensus for it's inclusion and there never will be. However, even a consensus for its inclusion means nothing. Under no circumstances can a lead of an article place an blatant lie (lots of dead people does not mean a massacre took place), that is propogandistic and is defamatory to an entire country.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I think as to the accuracy of the name, Wikipedia does not say that this was a massacre. Wikipedia says that the Arab world has called this event the Gaza massacre (my preferred version saying Hamas has called this the Gaza massacre). Do you actually dispute that, or is it just you think the name given is defamatory? Nableezy (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So how exactly can you make a policy based argument to not include it? Tell me exactly what is non-NPOV with this generic formulation. A and B fight some 'war'. A calls it X, B calls it Y, and most of the world calls it Z. The Wikipedia article says the following: "Z is a war between A and B. A has called this X, B called this Y." Nableezy (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You're just stating what the lede says, but instead of using the names and the countries you're using letters. Restating it with letters doesn't make it more rational. The fact remains that one of the names is a defamatory lie and it can't be given prominence in the lede. It's not Wikipedia's fault that one side decided to use a name that is unacceptable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Using letters helps identify whether or not you can show an issue with the lead based on policy. I really dont want to argue with you on whether or not it is a 'lie', but what you are saying is that because Hamas used a, lets just say objectionable to some, name for the event, that Wikipedia should then not allow that name to be given the same representation as the name the Israeli government has used, which I might add has been criticized as being objectionable to some. That is an argument I cannot accept, it has no basis in policy and depends only on ones personal perceptions. Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And would you mind pointing out the irrationality in the "Z is a war between A and B. A has called this X, B called this Y."? Nableezy (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nab: You don't want to argue whether it is a lie, but that's the crux of the issue. You equating the "objections" as if both sides objections' are on the same ground. While the P's have problem with the I's terming the operation as a song (i'm sure they didn't think it would last that long. i'm sure the operation-namers [who actually has that job?] would have come up something better like "operation defense of the homeland" had they known what would occur) it does not compare the I's objection to the P's name. Granted, a song is somewhat mocking and cheapening and there are grounds for objections to that name. On the hand, these objections do not compare to the objections of being accused of systematically and purposefully killing civilians, which is the mainstream definition of "massacre." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

10x dudes for teaching me defamatory. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, you cannot just remove a name that has been stable in the article without consensus, please refrain from doing so unless you have a consensus. Nableezy (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for its inclusion?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a 'wide' consensus, but if you look in the archives I think you will find that there had been a 'rough' consensus (and not just made up of the 'pro-P' editors) that the name should be included. That said, consensus is a result of editing, and anything that has been stable in this article for so long I think would be fair to say is a consensus based. Nableezy (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And are you really advocating this unilateral removal, something that would likely spark an edit war among a number of editors? Nableezy (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The archives indicates that there's no consensus or "rough consensus" for its inclusion. Nor has the article been stable. See User:AgadaUrbanit's talk page, which is replete with your warnings that he nor remove the term again. I'm advocating for a clear consensus before controversial and defamatory material is placed in the lede of an article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

1 warning about this, though he has been warned for numerous other removals of sourced info because he didnt like it (he was in fact reported to 3rr, I asked the admin to withdraw the complaint when he said he would stop with that type of behavior). And the article has not been stable, the lead has been stable. But my question to you is this. Can you make a policy-based argument for its exclusion? Nableezy (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you do an archive search on "Gaza Massacre" you will get an insane number of results, with a number of them leading to discussion where both the majority of the editors and the strength of the arguments (strength related to policy) are in favor of its inclusion. Your entire argument here, self-admitted, is that you feel the name is untrue and defamatory. You do not dispute that this is the name used by Hamas. The truth of the name is irrelevant, all that matters here is what has Hamas called this conflict. The answer to that question belongs in the lead, just as the answer to the question what has the Israeli government called this conflict belongs in the lead. To argue otherwise is to argue against NPOV. Nableezy (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Including "massacre" in the lede is unencyclopedic, NPOV-violative, and WP:N-violative. If Hamas chose to use a propagindistic and blatantly defamatory term for the war it does not mean that it warrants inclusion in the lede, just like lots of things that they say do not belong in encyclopedia articles. It doesn't make a difference that they are a party to the war. Not one reliable mainstream source makes any mention that Hamas called this war the "Gaza Massacre". If after all that was written about the war, not one mainstream source found it important to say that Hamas calls this war the "Gaza Massare", the war's WP article should not include that information. The lede's claim that Hamas calls it the Gaza War is the only statement in the whole entire article that cannot be sourced to to a mainstream source. Did Hamas call it a "massacre"? Sure. But they say lots of things. It is up to the mainstream sources to decide which Hamas statements they find newsworthy and which they don't find newsworthy. What is clear at this point, is that mainstream sources do not consider the Hamas name to be newsworthy, thus their name is unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple RS quote Hamas spokesmen using that name. They did not just call it a 'massacre', they explicitly called it the 'gaza massacre'. And take a look at other battle or war articles, the name each side uses is in the lead. Nableezy (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They might have quoted the Hamas spokesperson who called it the "Gaza Massacre" as part of his general statement, but that doesn't go to the point. Mainstream sources do not say in their own words that "Hamas calls this war the Gaza Massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it for now, till "rough consensus" for wording and section is formed. No place for "edit wars". Let's discuss it in civil way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming controversies

How about this, a section in the article discussing the names and issues that people have with the names? You can bring all your sources on defamation and blood libel, and all the sources on issues with naming this after a childrens song as well. The names would stay as the names in the lead with any controversies or complaints about those names in this supposed section. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that idea if not for the fact that it's OR and it's not really a controversy. As far as I know, no reliable sources consider this naming issue to be a controversy. The whole "controversy" is going on only here at WP. The mainstream sources have basically ignored this "massacre" term and rightfully think that mentioning this defamatory and untruthful term isn't worth the paper its printed on. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it isnt really OR, there are sources bringing up issues with each name, maybe controversy isnt the right word for it though. And mainstream sources (albeit Arab news sources) have in fact used that as the name on occasion, there is a bbc arabic source using it, al-arabiyya used it as well. Just a thought, gets shot down dont care too much. (and i really do refuse to argue about the truthfulness of the name, because i like you and dont want to make you cry, and my opinion doesnt mean much as far as the article goes. but the biggest reason is that i dont think it matters, it is truthful to say that Hamas used this as the name, WP does not say that this was a massacre so i dont see what the issue is) Nableezy (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If Hamas thinks that Jews originate from Apes, should their opinion be placed in the lede of Jew?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No. And you dont see the difference there? Hamas is a party to this conflict, in fact a primary party to this conflict. The name they use for this conflict needs to be included, just as the name the Israeli government uses for it needs to be included. Nableezy (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and we have been through this ad naseum. No one can deny its used by Hamas. No one can deny Hamas is one of two main parties to the main conflict. No one can deny that the Israeli name for the operation is bolded and that Cast Lead refers to some religious children's song (making it somewhat offensive to some people out there). No one can deny some people out there are offended by Gaza Massacre. None of this matters. What matters is given all significant POVs their due representation per NPOV. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record (and apropos libel), "cast lead" doesn't refer to a "religious children's song". It refers to a Hanukkah song by Bialik. The conflict started during Hanukkah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@Nab: There's not much of a difference. Hamas, and Islam in general, play a major part in forming Judaism, how Jews think, how Jews choose to live their lives, etc. Thus, if they think that only Jews originate from monkeys or pigs, their opinion of Jews is as relevant to the lede of Jew as their misconceived, defamatory and propagandistic name they decided to give to the war is relevant to the lede of the war article. For further detailed and specific policy violations, see subsection above and below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we're getting off topic here, discussing common roots, it was interesting to learn that Islam rejects the Biblical portrayal of David (Arabic Dawood) as an adulterer and murderer. Kind of controversy avoided. I was relieved that Bathsheba still marries David after all. Go figure it. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming WP:OR

Danger Danger - High Voltage Dreidel

Wikipedia procedures rule big time. None of the sources note "X (Hamas,Arab World,Oxford hippies) name for Y (Gaza war) is Z (massacre)". To some fellow editors naming claim looks like WP:OR. Is there ground for removal? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I've searched high and low for a reliable source that states "Hamas calls the war the "Gaza Massacre" but have yet to find one. Thus, WP's use of the term apparently violates wp:or/wp:synth, if not wp:n.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sean noted that wp:n does not apply to article content though (see WP:NNC). In my eyes the ease of changing variable X value with Hamas, Arab world or Oxford hippies demonstrate original research claim. If anyone disagrees with WP:OR argument please step in, your opinion is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:37, 1 May 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. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Hamas engaged in psywar + propaganda.(been waiting a long time to say that). Sources of course must address these actions as such(pro+psy) to avoid misrepresentation issues. Within the section itself, we could address that multiple RS talk about Israel's actions in other terms other than pro+psy, so perhaps is not necessary to break anything up or add another section, although if done right, and followed through, all options are more than available. Cryptonio (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understood what you are actually trying to say, though seems like you do not have general objection to include the above. I'll try to insert it and if you have reservations, we will discuss it.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the one para where I couldn't verify the sources used had identify practices as pro + psy war. The rest I checked. Cryptonio (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This one darnit "In another report compiled by IITC, evidencies for Hamas’s effort to perpetuate a victory myth in the warfare are produced: in the course of the fighting, Hamas released numerous announcements, exaggerating military success achieved by its fighters, claiming that more IDF soldiers were 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. [198] 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. [199]" Cryptonio (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We would like a response on these two matters please.

Read here: [25]. 'And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. “The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.” Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.' In my view, Cremonesi report is not helpful right now in the dead count section. However, as I said before, it will be more than helpful for other sections of the article. Fear and intimidation of the local population seems appropriate for the psy-war section, even if the headline does not say so explicitly. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the standard that we've been working with in here. if you notice the pro+psy war on Israel, all sources explicitly address the techniques under those terms, otherwise it wouldn't have stood the test of time. I don't know what your reason would be to include that information under any other section, because you have yet to provide one, but know that by simply implying that it should go there is not a reason. Cryptonio (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Related to this posting in the article of course.

A reporter from Gaza stated he had difficultly gathering evidencies as the local population is terrified of Hamas and threatened when not collaborating with the 'resistance'. [199]

If the RS does not address them as pro+psy war, then you are the one who make the judgment to call them that, and that would be WP:OR. I hope that this doesn't take much time to understand. Cryptonio (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue, the paragraph in question cite The battle for hearts and minds (198 and 199 is the same source). To start with, 'the battle for hearts and minds' and 'effort to perpetuate a victory myth ' sound a synonym to 'propaganda' to me. If this is not convincing, here is more from the text of the report: 'Operation Cast Lead was also a virtual war of TV screens, media, and public opinion. The battle for the hearts and minds is now entering its critical stage, with Hamas attempting to create a narrative according to which it has won the war (“divine victory”) or at least was not defeated standing against the fearsome war machine of the IDF. That effort is coordinated by the Hamas leadership in both Damascus and the Gaza Strip and is shared by the Hamas media, Al-Jazeera (which gives strategic support to Hamas's propaganda campaign) and Iran and Syria ' para. 1; 'Those who follow Hamas's propaganda, the statements made by its leaders, and Al-Jazeera TV, may get the impression that the IDF's activity in the Gaza Strip focused solely on harming the civilian population, while terrorist operatives are not seen and not heard.' para. 10; 'the Hamas propaganda emphasizes its ability to continuously fire rockets at Israel during Operation Cast Lead, including at Israeli cities not hit prior to the operation. Hamas spokesmen noted that, before the war, the rockets only reached Ashkelon (up to 20 km from the Gaza Strip), but during the war it reached such distant places (located up to 40 km from the Gaza Strip) as Beersheba and Ashdod. During the war, Hamas's propaganda even bragged that more population centers (up to Tel-Aviv) would be put in the range of fire' para. 13; 'the false statements made by Hamas about the IDF's alleged losses and about events that never happened have yet to create the desired effect in Israeli and Palestinian public opinion' para. 16 (again, sounds like synonym to 'propaganda'); 'the Israeli home front functioned properly during the rocket fire in Operation Cast Lead, not providing Hamas's propaganda with enough “proof” to establish an image of victory' para. 17. In short, the entire report is about Hamas' propaganda. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some definitions of propaganda.

Just in case, Hamas hides the casualties suffered by its operatives: 'to confirm (through Al-Jazeera and other media) the false propaganda message that Israel's military operations are aimed against Gaza Strip residents and that only the civilian population is being hit by the IDF and is paying the price.' para 3.c

Regarding the second issue. To start with, do you agree the sentence based on Cremonesi report is correct? If not, why? If yes, where do you think it fits best? Or maybe you think it is not significant enough to be mentioned? Lorenzo Cremonesi: 'These Locals are often threatened by Hamas...“This is not a new fact, in the Middle East, Arab societies are missing the cultural traditions of human rights. It happened during Arafat’s regime that the press started being persecuted and censured. With Hamas it is even worse,” said Eyad Sarraj". Now, to say that intimidation, physical violence and censorship are not means of psy-war aganst own population is, in my view, concealing.

While preparing this reply, I came across this:Creating a Citizenry Prepared for Terrorism. I should have thought of it earlier. 'The public must understand that terrorism is psychological warfare'; Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare 'The modern terrorist differs from the common criminal in that he is motivated by a political agenda', 'way to the terrorist’s ultimate political goal runs through a vital interim objective—the creation of an unremitting paralyzing sensation of fear in the target community'; A Form of Psychological Warfare 'Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear in the attainment of political change. It is thus undeniably a form of psychological warfare. Terrorists use violence—or, equally important, wield the threat of violence—because they believe that only through brutal mayhem can their cause triumph and long-term political aims be attained.' Is there any doubt that rockets on Israeli towns, sowing terror, is means of psy-war? Is there any doubt that intimidation of Gaza own population is means of psy-war? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first issue, it seems as the article itself is propaganda, I am not going to touch your explanation either. Since it's 'sort' of sourced, i'm leaving it at that.

On the reporter's statement, I have doubts I exist, so if the reporter's article does not address the claims as pro+psy war, I don't think it belongs on that section and I am not going in the business of looking for a place to put information. By your explanation on the first issue, don't you think that the reporter's article does not belong in pro+psy war? yes, I did not payed much attention to your argument trying to put words on the report's mouth. In conclusion, I personally no longer have a problem with Issue number 1, and I insist the reporter's sentence be removed from the pro+psy war section. Cryptonio (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first issue, I will anyway be adding more sources so it would not be based solely on IITC report. On the second issue, I fail to see how did I 'put words in reporter's mouth'. My source clearly says that 'Traitors, collaborators with Israel, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you'; 'Cremonesi reported that he had difficultly gathering evidence as the local population was terrified of Hamas'. Nevertheless, since 'Hamas reprisal attacks' section is now renamed into 'Hamas political violence', the sentence is indeed more appropriate there. Are we settled? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:22, 2 May 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." [19]

"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." [20]

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 [21]

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)

That we discuss actions by the IDF that in their opinion are intended to save lives, is not being rejected, but that we bring Kemp or senior adviser to the Queen into the mix, is umm, not feasible. There is no section titled "Israel efforts to reduce civil deaths" in the article, and I don't see how one will be able to creep in. Cryptonio (talk) 22:45, 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 Livni's 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 Arafat's 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[22] 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)

OK, let us rely on numbers. 1. In WWII, strategic aerial bombardment claimed the lives of over 60,000 British civilians and between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians, while American precision bombing, fire bombing and atomic bombing in Japan killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians (how many American civilians got killed in WWII?). 2. In 9/11, there were 2,974 fatalities. In the aftermath, the Bush administration announced a war on terrorism. Estimates of deaths caused by the invasion to Afghanistan from 2001 to the end of 2008 range from 7,760 to 18,000. The majority of these deaths caused by US and coalition troops. In December 2005 President Bush said there were estimates of 30,000 Iraqi dead. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the intention, Kasaalan, that counts, not the fatalities' numbers. Israel makes efforts to reduce casualties on both sides. Hamas and other terrorist organizations make effort to increase casualties on both sides, so that pure guys like you, Kaufman and Annie Lennox would sympathize their cause.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that intuition would say that they are of limited worth, overly fancy and ornate soapboxes such as these displayed in Hyères, France actually raise the price of the soap themselves drastically.

US knew Japan will surrender yet they used atomic bomb, it was a crime of Humanity, so if Israel is in the league of US or Britain or South Africa in war crimes, does that make Israel clean. Also if you will compare Bush made a war over 3 k death, killed 8-18 k people, Israeli killed a thousand for how many people.

How can you even try compare the result of years long wars' death casualty numbers, especially the 50 year old random bombing technology numbers, with a single 2 weeks of operation.

Also if Hamas is terrorist by killing innocent of 4 at recent events, does that make IDF 200 times more terrorist. Overthe years Hamas shed a lot of civilian blood, that is why I am against them, yet IDF shed even more blood of the innocent, that is also why I am against them too. Because we are talking about civilians here, not Hamas militants or IDF army troops. I am no way near sympathizing Hamas, neither Kaufman does, but that doesn't prevent me telling Israel supported Hamas against Fatah over the years to separate Palestinian Resistance Organisations. So should IDF also bomb Israeli politicians and military for that matter.

IDF has top rate civillian death ratio, so it is not believable they made a high effort on preventing this, that is only mere probaganda, because in the end all that matters is the bodies you bury. Also since we have no intention-meter, don't come with vague arguments like Israel has good intention, beause if we begin about claims, we should also include zionist arguments of parliament members that contains wiping of whole Palestinian territory with atomic bombs with everyone lives on it. Kasaalan (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IDF has top rate civillian death ratio? Boy, even if we take PCHR fatalities for granted, you should look around you and try to understand what world do you live in. Russia-Chechnya war is a good place to start. And wiping Palestine with A-bomb? Do enlighten us, so I could attach this one to my small collection (it includes proof Israelis are responsible for tsunami, but this ...). Finally (and I hope Squicks and others will excuse me for soapboxing here, simply can't stand the urge), Hamas are terrorists not because they kill X and injure Y. It is because they do everything in their power to sow terror, by suicide terror attacks on civilians (and on the crossings to Gaza btw), by rockets, by rhetorics (try their charter once), by their education and brainwashing children (go see Pioneers of Tomorrow). It is really a pity we don't have intention-meter, cause you won't appreciate this small 'propaganda' video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08L09V0_sg&feature=related. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So now Russia come to IDF's defense, right, I cannot justify neither Chechnya armed men's civillian killings nor Russian Army's, like I cannot whitewash neither Hamas nor IDF, IDF and Hamas is not different by any means, only difference is that IDF kills and wounds more than Hamas, suicide bombing and over bombing a city is not different, only air bombing kills more, they both kill civillians and children. I don't know did you even watched videos about Israeli checkpoints, but as Kaufman points out, they treat Palestinians like dirt. Also if you are so sensitive about civillian lives, can you also call Livni's father as a terrorist too, like Menachem Begin(wanted poster), along with other Irgun members., since he is the mastermind behind the hotel bombing which leads 90 people killing, as Kaufman pointed out, "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.", I have posters for lots of founders of Israel by British army labelled as terrorists. All of the claims of Kaufman has historical facts that doesn't even leave space for discussion. Photographs of the Irgun in action Kasaalan (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My final response, no matter what. Fullay aware it will produce no effect, I nevertheless is providing some stuff to be read. 1. Kaufman, as well as Chomsky and Finkelstein, tend to tell half-truths, beware. Read this to have some more insight into terrorism in Palestine before 1948.

“Jews stole Arab land.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b5

“The British helped the Palestinians to live peacefully with the Jews.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b6

“The Irgun bombed the King David Hotel as part of a terror campaign against civilians.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Mandatoryper.html#b8

2. Terrorists they were, but there is a difference. Here is an excerpt from Dershowitz I find appropriate.

…Although it was not the policy of the Haganah to encourage the flight of local Arabs, that certainly seems to have been the policy of the Irgun (Etzel), the paramilitary wing of the revisionist movement headed by Menachem Begin, and Lechi (or the Stern gang) headed by Yitzhak Shamir. On April 9, 1948, paramilitary units fought a difficult battle for control of Deir Yassin, an important Arab village on the way to Jerusalem. The battle was fierce, with Etzel and Lechi forces losing more than a quarter of their fighters… Most of the villagers eventually fled. [W]hen [the fighting] was over, 100 to 110 Arabs were dead… [including] children and old people… The Haganah and the Jewish Agency, the official organs of the state-to-be, immediately condemned the massacre and those who had participated in it. A formal note of apology and explanation was sent to King Abdullah. Indeed, the Deir Yassin massacre certainly contributed to the controversial decision by David Ben-Gurion - Israel’s first prime minister - to disarm, by force, these paramilitary groups in June 1948.

Deir Yassin stands out in the history of Arab–Jewish conflict in Palestine precisely because it was so unusual and so out of character for the Jews. No single Arab massacre of Jews has that status, because there are too many to list. Yet every Arab schoolchild and propagandist knows of and speaks of Deir Yassin, while few ever mention Hebron, Kfar Etzion, Hadassah Hospital, Safad, and the many other well-planned Arab massacres of Jews to come, except when extremists proudly take credit for them. The Arabs retaliated for the Deir Yassin massacre not by attacking those responsible for perpetrating it - Etzel or Lechi military targets – but rather by deliberately committing a far more premeditated massacre of their own. In a well-planned attack four days after Deir Yassin, Arab forces ambushed a civilian convoy of doctors, nurses, medical school professors, and patients headed toward the Hadassah hospital to treat the sick, murdering seventy of them. To assure there were no survivors, the Arab attackers doused the buses and cars containing the medical personnel with gasoline, “setting them alight.” No apologies or excuses were offered for this carefully planned massacre of medical noncombatants. Israeli forces did not retaliate for the Hadassah massacre by targeting Arab civilians. They went after those armed murderers who had perpetrated the massacre. Deir Yassin remained an isolated although tragic and inexcusable blemish on Israeli paramilitary actions in defense of its civilian population, while the deliberate targeting of civilians remained, and still remains, the policy of Palestinian terrorist groups, as well as of many Arab governments. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not my final response because Kaufman's words reflect reality, and can be provable anytime.

1 So if you will begin calling people terrorists, the founders of the Israel state may be called as such. But terror is a vague term and I never like to use it anyway. I cannot find much difference between Irgun, Stern and Hamas, but Hamas is even more desperate and weak against a stronger enemy, kills more civillians but still not comparable to the killings of IDF. Small Wars of Britain[23] "It was 48 years ago, on Jan. 4, 1948, when Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all-Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children. [24]" not much different from Hamas in action right. Or is there really a difference that I have been missing.

2 You talk as if there were no other massacres committed by support of Israel but Deir Yassin because even Sabra and Shatila massacre aren't that far in the history. Also let me remind you what happens when you try to testimony against war criminals like Ariel Sharon. "Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist commander at the time of the massacre never stood trial and held a post of a minister in Lebanese government in the 1990s. He was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut on January 24, 2002; some speculated he was preparing to testify in the Belgian war-crimes tribunal investigating the massacre, though others doubted he intended to testify at all."

3 But your logic also interesting just read King David Hotel bombing, So they telephoned they placed the bomb, how nice of them, but why did they put a bomb, because British army confiscated their document, really what a great reason to explode a hotel that is highly populated. Also no kill policy is not bad for an armed organization, which is actually a high standard. Yet they phoned, because they knew British may act back pretty harsh on them, if they kill any British citizen, don't even claim they pity human life other than Jewish, because the statements after the bombing proves they simply don't.

"The Irgun issued an initial statement accepting responsibility for the attack, blaming the British for the deaths due to failure to respond to the warning and mourning the Jewish victims. A year later, on July 22 1947, they issued a new statement saying that they were acting on instructions from "a letter from the headquarters of the United Resistance, demanding that we carry out an attack on the center of government at the King David Hotel as soon as possible." Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the hotel was not evacuated which resulted in casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy. The Irgun's radio network announced that it would mourn for the Jewish victims, but not the British ones. This was explained by claiming that Britain had not mourned for the millions of Jews who died in the Nazi Holocaust. No mention was made of the largest group of victims, the Arab dead."

Presenting them as angels is against the truths by any means. They can't even express sorrow for the non Jewish British victims, while not even mentioning the largest group of victims, the Arabs. So calling these political statements as humanized, may not reflect the reality. Kasaalan (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

4 Also there is something called as a signal beacon/warning shot. If IRA would call, you had enough reason to take them serious, since they have done that before many times. But you also know anyone can call a building and say there is bomb in it. You cannot fully evacuate a building anytime anyone calls with fake threats. Or any flight or building would have been emptied till they can no longer operate. If they need to be taken seriously, they could explode a bomb before the event to a non-populated target, showing they are serious somehow before bombing a hotel completely. Sorry, phoning a first time event in the name of a hidden organization, not always taken seriously.

5 A massacre cannot justify another one. And your claims as no massacre IDF is responsible but Deir Yassen is a clear error. Let alone millions of Palestinian living as refugees with no rights in other countries, IDF killed civillians more than we can count. For the Massacre's that Jewish people got killed of course should be treated as same human basis, and we should all remember them, yet with a difference. Israel is a state, that organizes its own forces, from the very beginning so it is responsible of their actions, but Arabs has as separate forces. Even Hamas may only represent just a minority in Palestine population over the years. And again just as Kaufman said, only after Arafat's death and IDF's human targetting over the years, they gained a huge force, beginning with the support and overlooking of Mossad against Fatah. So when we talking about Hamas' murders we should also mention Israel's own support to them in the earlier years, just like US-Taleban/Bush-Bin Laden support over the years. I don't know if you have been watching the situation for more than 10 years but Palestinian land was still occupied, when there was no Hamas, no rockets or no suicidal bombings, they only happened after 90s. IDF's own actions created Hamas, so blame Hamas but also blame IDF/Mossad if you want to be neutral to the case. Kasaalan (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

6 Hamas cannot make peace, they are weak only Israel can, because they are strong, if they really wants it, but as a matter of fact it is clear Israel doesn't want to make peace according to any justifiable term. They have never stopped the occupation, check points, or illegal settlements that invading palestinian territory, neither before the rockets or suicide bombings, nor after them. So don't tell me the whole issue is about the lousy homemade rockets of Hamas. Their maximum capability is killing 5 people if they fire a thousand. Kasaalan (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

7 List of Irgun attacks clearly shows they target civillian Arabs and British in public bombings. So don't tell me they phoning before, or care civillian harms. Irgun bombed the public a lot. So again Irgun not different from Hamas. Kasaalan (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

8 List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war in Mandate Palestine clearly shows the massacres from different parties. Kasaalan (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this WP:soapboxing have anything to do with this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read we discuss the truths/errors about the speech Kaufman made on British mp that highly critizes Israeli government for the Gaza Strike. It is also rather informative if you bother to read. Personally I learned a lot by reading other editors. Same happened here, although in the conclusion I still oppose the arguments, Irgun may be a little polite against British, but they were definitely not nice at all. Kasaalan (talk) 18:08, 27 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 on exhaustive investigations on the ground, but on 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)

Where is the source in the article for his statements? Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The policy of WP:RS does not require that the reliable sources provide their sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I read several articles, and that one article is the one originally sourced, and no longer so. This is a rapid translation of what he wrote of some of the hospitals in that brief visit. Nothing like it is being cited from Cremonesi.

'A choral scream of 'shahid, shahid'(matyr) accompanies one on entering the hospital. Two stretchers red with blood, on them two corpses. Men, youngsters, brains dripping from the skull. Some women dressed in black, their faces without veils call on Allah, and weep. When they catch sight of a western journalist they weigh in against Israel and its nazi crimes. Some wounded then come in, at least six. One is shaken by continuous trembling: he too has a head wound. You can't recognize his face the nose split, the eyes opened wide. Today Israel hit the villages of the south eastern zone hard, the ones that face the Negev desert. Two names continually crop up: Abasan e Kuza, with, respectively 25.000 and 16.000 inhabitants. "Practically all the most serious victims of the last 24 hours come from those two villages'. Our hospital sends the hardest cases to the most important hospital, the "Nasser" Hospital of Khan Yunis," Kamal Mussa, the institute's administrative director tells me. Chaos dominates the place. The guards allow everyone in to the emergency treatment area. The doctors seem professional, many of them have studied abroad, in Cairo, but also in France, Italy and the United States. There's no shortage of medicines, nor equipment. But the crowd is excessive, the emergency ward's overwhelmed by it. 'The Israelis have no humanity, they fire into the thick of crowds, don't distinguish between soldiers and civilians, aim at children, fire at homes,' the members of, the Qodeh and Argelah, the clans hit hardest (by the attacks) scream. One fact seems obvious, at least for south Gaza: there's no malnutrition. Notwithstanding the price rises, and the shortage of certain kinds of food, the blockade on movement, no one is dying of starvation in Gaza. 'The situation's much worse in the great refugee camps further north, like Jabaliah. But here in the south there's no lack of food', Saber Sarafandi, a 30 year old intern doctor tells me. He and his colleague, the nurse, Mohammad Lafi, just back from a long course of specialization in the US, are clearly moderates. There's little they share with the culture of holy war and islamic fundamentalism propagated by Hamas. To the contrary, they look on the lads with long bears and in black uniforms moving about the reception area with a certain distaste. Yet they both are assured of one fact: 'It's true that Hamas broke the truce and caused the beginning of battle to precipitate on the 27 December. But Israel had us in a stranglehold, and nthey had no alternative. The gravity of things are so much a matter of the targeted murders which israel perpetrated even during the truce. Rather, it's the sealing off of Gaza like one big prison. Hamas's choice was one between being killed over a slow fire, or quickly in war. And they were right to choose the immediate clash, a scream (of remonstrance) to the outside world. Because of this they are winning the population's sympathy. Hamas today is stronger than it has ever been amongst out people'. . .At the Nasser, it's the administrative director, We’am Fares, who supplies us in detail with the figures for the war. All 350 beds in his hospital are occupied.'Just today we have taken in 12 dead and 48 wounded, aged between 13 and 75. From the 27th of December we (alone) have had 680 dead, and 183 wounded, at least 35% of whom were children under 14 years of age.' . .Christopher Oberlin, a Parisian surgeon who arrived three days ago on behalf of the French government (speaking of phosphorus wounds),'I personally haven't seen any victims of it, and I don't know whether I would really be able to distinguish them from other wounded, I'm not a doctor with experience of war wounds'. But he's certain of one thing.ìThe Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that bvefore any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it. And the wounds I've seen are horrible.. A good many patients die in surgery'. Towards 10 pm other ambulances full of wounded arrive. A painful scene follows, lightened only by the wide smile of Asma, a 10 year old young girl with a throat wound, who speaks nonetheless rapidly, almost happily, and promises that she will go on to study at the university.'Lorenzo Cremonesi, A GAZA TRA MACERIE E RABBIA (In Gaza, between ruins and wrath).Corriere della Sera, 14 gennaio 2009

The 500-600 people who have died, does not specify absolutely anything. How many where civilians and how many were combatants? if they were all civilians, they surpass the total number of IDF's civilian casualties. And if 300 were combatants and 300 were civilians, they actually underestimate IDF's total combatant numbers, in direct contradiction to the statement that says, PCHR over-estimated civilian casualties. And if 450 were combatants and 150 were cicilian, the reporter's count actually under estimated the casualties count according to the IDF and PCHR, making both parties guilty of over-stating casualty counts. I am removing this section, for good reasons. Cryptonio (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Then, are Cremonesi's statements less valid only because they overestimate or underestimate the death tolls given by the PCHR and the IDF? The IDF also underestimated non-combatant figures given by the PCHR, and the PCHR overestimated non-combatant figures given by the IDF. So, according to your point of view, Israeli and Palestinian figures should be removed, too.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR and IDF aren't over or under estimated. They are unverified for now, and the reporters figures does not verify neither one of them, but does criticize one side yet neglects to state that it is also in contradiction with the IDF's numbers. Why are you arguing this for ah? can't see the point? The UN report will look at both, the IDF's and PMH's numbers, it is safe to say, when looking at range, under-over, that the reporters numbers will be make looked as a field excursion by a reporter while the war was going on. The reporter simply does not criticizes the IDF's numbers but does the PHM's, if you can find a report that criticizes both, then it would go up there. Don't add this up again if you don't have any good reason, thanks. Cryptonio (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In a number's dispute, the reporter's statements don't provide enough verifiability if it's used to verify actual count etc. The two figures here in dispute are the PMH's numbers and the IDF's, the reporters statements and numbers in this context, are used to get an outside account(in lieu of UN numbers), but when it criticizes one side and not the other, when it's own numbers are in contradiction with both camps, then it no longer serves it purpose, and so the whole commentary can be rendered obsolete. This is elementary as in, get it the first time. Cryptonio (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And who does provide enough verifiability for you? The IDF? The PCHR? The PMoH, which is under Hamas control? The reporter says that 500 to 600 people were killed, the IDF says more than 1,100, the PCHR and the PMoH say that more than 1,300. The verifiability of all of these sources is questionable; the neutrality of the Israeli and the Palestinian sources is also questionable. Then appears this reporter (who made more than a field excursion) quoting a doctor, and his numbers are less valid only because he critizises only one side? Israelis and Palestinians also critized just one side (that is, the other) but their unverifiable figures were put in this article. By the way, is not a contradiction citing the PMoH death toll and delete Cremonesi's death toll, which is based on a declaration of an individual who presumably works for the PMoH?--Follgramm3006 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio: That's not the way things work around here. You can't discount and wholly delete a reliable source because you have issues with the content. Please revert. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The content has issues with the article, that you don't want to follow the case being made is not my idea of fault. I was not the one who added this information, I was the one who removed it. Statements by both sides, and ample has been made, critisizing the version of the other are more than welcome. The UN report shall make everything good. That in the meantime we have a report by a reporter, in such a delicate matter, is of no use to us and does no justice. That the report critizes Hamas when it doesn't, where it doesn't is not right, and of course that it fails to address the other side's "accounting mistake" is the main issue. Cryptonio (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a RS reporting on events pertinent to this article. What you think is right or not about how this RS treats Hamas is also irrelevant. This is how wikipedia works, for good or bad. Feel free to include other sources that say this source is wrong. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all RS reporting about the subject is included in this article. So that "one size fits all" barrage is not welcoming. It is not about Hamas, bud, it is about criticizing PHM numbers when its own numbers are also in conflict with IDF's numbers. Feel free to find a source that would criticize both sides numbers. Cryptonio (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) has been notified of WP:ARBPIA here. If he doesn't stop edit-warring I'd suggest you post a notification on WP:AE -- further reverting will only escalate and won't help the article. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 27.04.2009 07:04

I do not need to find a source that "criticize both sides" that is not how wikipedia works. You need to find a source that criticizes the source you don't like. We were reaching something several editors from both sides of the issue seemed to be able to live with, but apparently that's not good enough. I won't edit further since I'm close to WP:3RR but I'm sure someone else will. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Follgram seems to have trouble conversing. Another argument against the source he keeps reverting, is htat the reporter quote ONE single doctor. What doctor is this? head nurse? the reporter doesn't even 'allude' that the doctor is a director or something like that, able to speak in that capacity. I would like a response on this matter, before reverting this again. Cryptonio (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Read here: [25]. 'And there is another fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross. “The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter.” Said the doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.' In my view, Cremonesi report is not helpful right now in the dead count section. However, as I said before, it will be more than helpful for other sections of the article. Fear and intimidation of the local population seems appropriate for the psy-war section, even if the headline does not say so explicitly. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not the standard that we've been working with in here. if you notice the pro+psy war on Israel, all sources explicitly address the techniques under those terms, otherwise it wouldn't have stood the test of time. I don't know what your reason would be to include that information under any other section, because you have yet to provide one, but know that by simply implying that it should go there is not a reason. Cryptonio (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There are people here who think that Cremonesi's information should be included. In my point of view, Cremonesi's information is interesting for the article, and the PCHR response, too.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Im with you bud, anything Cremonesi is all important to this article. Nicely done. Cryptonio (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All of this civility is going to drive me to drink. You gotta be Cremonesi himself Follagram, not only you add this information to the article, information that was included in the article for a LONG time and almost in its entirety, and that was removed by a Pro-israeli editor(whose name i will withold for a fear for my life). Plus you also add the external link of the report to "SEE ALSO"? IN ITALIAN?? that move is more to make the report more relevant than what it is. You have to be Cremonesi, trying to get some air space in the article. And can somebody tell brewcrwer i don't appreciate him writing in my talk page. Thanks all. Civility rules kids, be nice to one another. Cryptonio (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Cryptonio. I left a rather lengthy response to your inquires in psy-war section. Cremonesi issue is of course the most problematic one. I think it is more than obvious that terror (including own population) is means of psy-war. I provided some links that indirectly support it. If you still oppose, I will seek a way to challenge your standard. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep repeating certain 'tag lines' in hopes that it becomes the standard. And those tag lines are pretty, obvious, POV. You throw these lines as if we have to adapt to your terminology and beliefs. It's not working, dude. Cryptonio (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not Lorenzo Cremonesi.--Follgramm3006 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

PCHR List of fatalities revisited.

The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (Herzliya, Israel) has carried out an intensive research project to gain a clearer picture of the casualties of the IDF military incursion in Gaza in December 2008-January 2009. The research was based on the list of casualties published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), supplemented by Hamas and Fatah websites and official Palestinian government online sources. Summary:

http://www.ict.org.il/ResearchPublications/CastLeadCasualties/tabid/325/Default.aspx

Report: http://www.ict.org.il/Portals/0/Articles/ICT_Cast_Lead_Casualties-A_Closer_Look.pdf

The Institute for Counter-Terrorism has carried out an intensive research project to gain a clearer picture of the casualties of the IDF military incursion in Gaza in December 2008-January 2009. The research was based on the list of casualties published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), supplemented by Hamas and Fatah websites and official Palestinian government online sources. Although the study relied on the PCHR’s raw data throughout, our analysis of this data disproves the PCHR’s claims regarding indiscriminate Israeli fire on civilian areas. In fact, by checking the names on the PCHR list against Hamas websites, we found that many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas. Others listed by PCHR as civilians, killed in Israeli raids, later turned out to be Fatah members killed by Hamas, some of them in execution style killings. While both PCHR and ICT consider civil policemen to be noncombatants, our researchers found that many of the civil policemen killed also held operational ranks in the Hamas military wing. In fact, due to the structure of the Hamas military, it was difficult to draw a clear dividing line between purely civilian police functions and activity in support of military operations.

According to PCHR, some 1,434 Palestinians were killed in Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip; these included 235 combatants, 239 police officers, and 960 civilians. Of the latter, 121 were women and 288 were children (defined as anyone under 18 years old). ICT’s research, based both on Hamas websites and on investigation into the circumstances under which people were killed, has so far individually identified at least 314 combatants; as this effort is ongoing, the number will almost certainly increase. 18 of these identified combatants were younger than 18, and thus counted as children by PCHR. (Detail: 1 14-year-old, 4 16-year-olds, and 13 17-year-olds.) Not counting policemen, we have so far identified 363 noncombatants, leaving us with around 518 unknowns – all of them male.

Many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians, were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas.

The age distribution of noncombatant fatalities shows a huge excess of combat-aged males, as well as a smaller excess of males at all ages.

Hamas had engaged in a publicity campaign for many months before the invasion, proudly claiming that 'unpleasant surprises' would await any invading Israeli forces. These Hamas claims led to (and justified) Israeli tactics designed to minimize IDF casualties, including heavy use of force and considerable reliance on stand-off weaponry such as artillery and aerial bombardment. Considering all this, the fact that at least 63% to 75% of the Palestinians killed in Operation Cast Lead appear to have been specifically-targeted, combat-aged males, PCHR’s own data refutes its claim that Israel’s attacks were indiscriminate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, by checking the names on the PCHR list against Hamas websites, we found that many of those claimed by PCHR to be civilians were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas. Others listed by PCHR as civilians, killed in Israeli raids, later turned out to be Fatah members killed by Hamas, some of them in execution style killings. While both PCHR and ICT consider civil policemen to be noncombatants, our researchers found that many of the civil policemen killed also held operational ranks in the Hamas military wing. In fact, due to the structure of the Hamas military, it was difficult to draw a clear dividing line between purely civilian police functions and activity in support of military operations.

With a methodology like that, where being hailed at a funeral as a Hamas militant converts you into one (thus confusing public rhetoric in praise of the dead with the cool analysis of realities), makes this just a piece of Israeli propaganda. Hamas was the only employer, hence if you were employed in the Gaza government in any capacity, you are not a civilian. Oh come off it! Those kids killed at the police graduation ceremony at 11.32 can be thought of as 'terrorists' only by a government that wants to make its slaughter of all and sundry, clean, legal and precise. No one abroad seems to swallow it.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice combination of WP:soapbox and WP:OR.

Anyway, we were kind of discussing this issue here, for anyone interested. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, 1. Speak for yourself. Unlike some OR I presented above, this report was submitted by well-recognized and known body. So, merely the fact that you don't like it cause it contradicts your POV won't make it ineligible for entering the article. You are welcomed however to present us with different report made by verifiable and reliable source that refutes this one. 2. There were about 40 'kids' killed during that ceremony, we have still about 200 policemen to address. Apart from cadets, the report presents enough evidence there are lots of 'policemen' who has also ranking in Hamas military wing. Not to mention militants below 18 (PCHR itself listed 7 boys below 18 who were militants), Fatah members executed by Hamas, age distribution and so on. 3. Do you speak Arabic? Cause if you do, I will ask you to enter PALD forum here:http://www.paldf.net/forum/ and tell me with all the sincerity (and I will accept it cause I don't speak Arabic) how many children below 14, or women, or elders are hailed there as shahids and martyrs in the same way they are hailed in pp.4-6 of the report? If you find that many undisputable civilians are hailed there in the same manner, I will reconsider my attitude towards the report. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no WP:OR involved. Merely an examination of their method. It is the Israeli government's purpose, well serviced by the usual think tanks, to make as many of those killed militants. If they convince independent bodies that their breakdown is correct, well and good. Until they do, I will trust only non-governmental bodies for a final assessment. Give me an in-time report by any major government that holds up over time and I'll be a Monkey's uncle. I went through that in Vietnam. Some of us have memories.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see plenty of OR here from both sides, which is not at all helpful.

It is the Israeli government's purpose, well serviced by the usual think tanks, to make as many of those killed militants. If they convince independent bodies that their breakdown is correct, well and good. Until they do, I will trust only non-governmental bodies for a final assessment.

This too is not helpful. One may very well have personal reason to consider Palestinian think tanks and ngos to be more reliable/notable than their Israel counterparts, but this doesn't matter in terms of policy. A think tank is a think tank. The ideological label alone can't determine value. In the United States, we don't place the Brookings Institute above the Heritage Foundation or vise versa.

The questions here are (1)Is the ICT notable and reliable in general? and (2)Is the ICT's views in this particular case worth mentioning? I believe both are true and including a sentence or something like that about the ICT's critique of the PCHR to be approriate. This is certainly up for reasonable, rational debate if we could all please stop the ideological jihadist-like soapboxing from both sides. The Squicks (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the ICT really notable worldwide or reliable, how can you prove this. Which independent human rights organisations give the notability and reliability you mention to ICT. Personally never knew there was such institute before. How many international newspapers, magazines or organisations mention them, and give this notability and credibility to them. Kasaalan (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But also if there are some incosistencies exist in PCHR report as ICT claims, we should mention that in the article with a sentence. Kasaalan (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One quick rant though= 17, 18, 19, and 20 year olds are not "kids". They are adults. I consider this ageism to be as morally sickening as homophobia and anti-semitism and the like. The Squicks (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know in most of the countries in the world 17 year is not considered to be adult, even 18 year not considered as adult untill they are 19 or even 21 in some countries.

In most of the world, including the United States, parts of the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales), India and China, the legal adult age is 18 for most purposes, with some exceptions:

Singapore (21)

Indonesia and Japan (20)

South Korea & British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Yukon Territory in Canada (19)

the United Kingdom: Scotland (16) Legal Adulthood

We shall overcomeeeeee. We shall overcome. We shall overcome, Squicks, someday...

You may read the Age of majority article, for a complete listing. You are simply wrong about your 17 years old kids are actually adults claim. So if there is any kind of ageism here, it belongs to you. Also don't forget, even in the countries the adulthood age is low, the main reason for such a low age preferred is so that young people can get married with each other and have a family. Not because they can be considered as adults when they killed by Israel army. Kasaalan (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In Israel the age of majority is 18 not 17, like most of the world countries. Kasaalan (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about inalienable human rights. Sure, just how the law around the world used to consider gay people to be subhuman and used to consider black people subhuman just a few short years ago -- today's laws claim that young people are similarly subhuman. Kasaalan's argument that "the law is the law" and that something is inherently true or good just because it is the law is just silly.

Those laws are a product of Christian-based infantilization, enforcing their moral concepts on others against their own will. You can note that non-Christian countries without this Christian social conservative BS have lower age of majorities.

It's a matter of destiny that the more and more secular a country gets, the lower the age gets. And this secularization is the inevitable push of history in the last few decades. The Squicks (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are simply wrong to claim that young people are not adults because of "the law". That law will change since it conflicts with the basic inalienable human rights of young people.

So if there is any kind of ageism here, it belongs to you. Hah! Projection at its finest. Just like how the homophobes call gay rights advocates "hateful" and "bigoted"... The Squicks (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim a 17 year old boy should be considered as an adult, while they have been killed by IDF, I proved you are simply wrong all around the world, except a few countries that give permission to before 18 years old marriage. So call yourself whatever you want, but don't call me anything, because you have no right to speak over your false claims. So leave any projection along, and try to prove how you can consider a 17 old boy as an adult. If you cannot accomplish that, arguing false claims according to your personal thoughts won't help you on the issue. Your claims are vague and even don't deserve a discussion, if we talking about who we will call as children in a death toll report. Because as an international agreement under 18 year old considered to be children. So recounting will lead misunderstandings. Kasaalan (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I am against any kind of religion based dictatorship including Christian-based ones, I can clearly say even a 23 year old university student shouldn't be considered as a true adult. Being able to vote or being able to think won't make anyone an adult.

I don't understand what you try to propose here, so for being more human and secular to the matter, should we actually label 17 boys and girls that have been killed by IDF as adults, so that IDF and Israel can call them as such for their public probaganda, I don't know is there any better way to justify children killings then calling them as adults. As Kaufman said, would the "reply of a Nazi" be any different. Kasaalan (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"I can clearly say even a 23 year old university student shouldn't be considered as a true adult." Denying people their inalienable rights and labeleing them subhuman just because of your personal prejudice without any logic or reason to back you up... wow, your words sound just like "the reply of a Nazi".

The answer is way out of the scope of this topic, I made a clear statement on my answer is limited to the death toll, if you don't oppose that I have no issue with you. Yet it is neither proper or revelant, discussing your ageism claims in such a delicate matter, out of nowhere, if it is not relevant. Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to deny people their rights because of their age, than this makes you a bigot like the Nazi were bigots. And if this is "neither proper or revelant", then it was pretty silly of you to make this arguement in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"should we actually label 17 boys and girls that have been killed by IDF as adults, so that IDF and Israel can call them as such for their public probaganda" I opposed the Israel assault on Gaza when it started, and I still oppose it. I also accept the fact that international law considers young people to be subhuman the same way it used to consider blacks to be subhuman.

"I don't understand what you try to propose here" I am not proposing anything. The article is fine with me. It was you who wanted to get into an arguement since you believe that young people are subhuman based on your prejudices. The Squicks (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly stated being able to vote or marry is not relevant to being a real adult. I do not consider anyone as subhuman, maybe only those who considers others as subhuman, so calling some 17 year old teenager as adult when you giving their rights is totally different than calling them as adult when you take away their life. No prejudice involved. Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly stated being able to vote or marry is not relevant to being a real adult. I do not consider anyone as subhuman, maybe only those who considers others as subhuman Well, I'm sure it's all nice and perfect and wonderful in your mind to support keeping people from marrying and from voting against their will. Again, is this not the Nazi mindset?

All of this is besides the point of this article. It's like aruging about religion on a page about cooking.

The ICT is notable and reliable as well as making criticism of PCHR that is worth mentioning. Of course, Wikipedia cannot take a stance as to whether or not the ICT (or the PCHR) is true or noble or correct or whatever-- that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ICT is less notable and credible than PCHR internationally, also I don't think they have field experience on casualty reports in anyway, if you claim otherwise you should prove it first, even their name indicates the center accomplished military purposes in mind. Yet we should mention their objections, but before we should proof check them first against PCHR claims, I also consider mailing the report to PCHR for an official answer from them. Kasaalan (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how really you can compare PCHR vs ICT credibility. Anyway, ICT: The International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) is a non-profit organization located at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel. The ICT was founded in 1996 and describes itself as "the leading academic institute for counter-terrorism in the world, facilitating international cooperation in the global struggle against terrorism. ICT is an independent think tank providing expertise in terrorism, counter-terrorism, homeland security, threat vulnerability and risk assessment, intelligence analysis and national security and defense policy. This of course can be found on their site and right behind the corner, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Policy_Institute_for_Counter-Terrorism. Now here is an example of their annual conference: 'More than 1000 participants from over 56 countries attended ICT’s 7th annual conference, with a similar turnout expected this year'. http://www.ict.org.il/AnnualConference/Highlights8thConference/Conference2008/tabid/86/Default.aspx. Sounds notable enough for me. 'We' don't have to do nothing more. If you wish, you are more than welcomed, Kasaalan, to mail PCHR the report and provide us with their response. Until then, the highlights of this report are about to enter the article. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you simply forget 1 important part in the sentence, ITC describes itself as "the leading academic institute for counter-terrorism in the world, facilitating international cooperation in the global struggle against terrorism. ICT is an independent think tank providing expertise in terrorism, counter-terrorism, homeland security, threat vulnerability and risk assessment, intelligence analysis and national security and defense policy." They may even describe themselves as duck or superman, that doesn't prove anything. Besides, annual UFO conferences are even more crowder, but that doesn't make them credible. So quality that matters not quantity. 1000 experts may be important, but calling yourself as expert and being expert is different, also did these 1000 people payed their expenses to come conferense, or did they funded because that changes a lot. Notability doesn't give credibility. I agree mentioning them since they may have a point, but think-tanks main foundation purpose is serving the military army and their governments. So expecting them to claim what IDF want them to claim is not far from truth. Having International in its name not makes it international, which solid books, articles, experts, academics give them credit, is what I ask for. Their 1000 user meeting is no proof, it may only be an indication. Being credible to Israel and being credible internationally is different, also on which expertise area. Kasaalan (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The PCHR is an ideological propaganda wing that supports some Palestinian ideologies against some other Palestinans and against the Israelis. The ICT is a mirror image propaganda wing.

As far as international notability is concerned, the ICT's reporting has been mentioned by The Village Voice here, USA Today here, and Asian Tribune here. All of these are reliable sources. The Squicks (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PCHR Documents on Gaza Strike

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Welcomes Decision of Spanish Court to Investigate War Crimes Committed by IOF in Gaza PDF

Complete list of victims following Israel’s 23 day offensive on the Gaza Strip PDF [Name, Sex, Age, Occupation, Address, Governorate, Civilian/militant coluns available]

PCHR Documents

PCHR has a complicated page. I will try to collect selected links here. Kasaalan (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of images

There is a discussion on the use of images in articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict - including this one - at Talk:Qassam rocket#Osher Twito picture that might interest editors of this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Inter law section

Can someone explain how this isn't WP:SYNTH since the reporter's remarks isn't even sourced? And where in either of the "two" sources is International Law violations are mentioned? as per long standing requisite?

Il Corriere della Sera's correspondent for the Middle East, Lorenzo Cremonesi, reported that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields, and that they carried out armed operations from schools, mosques, hospitals, public buildings, press buildings and other densely inhabited locations. Cremonesi also reported that Hamas arrested, tortured and killed supposed political opponents and people allegedly involved in acts of collaboration with Israel. Cremonesi stated that he based his report on interviews with local citizens. The political violence allegations have been corroborated by a HRW report on the subject.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure that launching military attacks from hospitals and press buildings (at the very least) are breaches of international law.

There was a source for the Corriere stuff, must have gotten lost in all the reverts that went on yesterday. I'm not touching this article today so nobody would have an excuse to try and block me, but I'm sure you can find it if you're really interested.

Also, I think the name of this section should be changed to something along the lines of "International law and human rights". The (badly named) "Hamas reprisal attacks" could be merged into it as well as it covers some of the same stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We should mention the journalist's objection, yet only limited to 1 or 2 sentences at most, along with proper references for further research in reference section. Yet dedicating him parapraphs long, is out of question. He wasn't the only one in town. If they were such outrageous difference in numbers, UN reporters or other journalists would definately notice. Kasaalan (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We were able to limit the Cremonesi stuff to a couple of sentences about how he didn't see a lot of wounded and a couple more about other information he gathered like so, in a way that at least Nableezy and myself seemed to be able to live with. That was reverted. Feel free to weigh in. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm a whiney little girl about it... the section is still off and needs to be restructured. Don't mind most of the content just the flow and weight given to certain sources.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check Cremonesi completely since he claimed he visited 4 hospitals and they were not that crowded, but did he also checked Red Cross and UN hospitals, because they clearly say they are overwhelmed by the patients, "A health expert with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Gaza said on December 28 that hospitals were "overwhelmed and unable to cope with the scale and type of injuries that keep coming in." The ICRC noted that medical supplies and medicines were already badly depleted as a result of Israel's prohibition of most imports into Gaza since Hamas took full internal control of the territory in June 2007." [26] Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Back to the 'police' issue

Righ now, the 'disputed figures' subsection says that 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223]' and 'IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police assist rocket launching squads, however HRW argues that "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities".[224]' I argue that first sentence is POV citation of [223]:http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets. This is what it actually says: "Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "At the same time, Israel should not target individuals and institutions in Gaza solely because they are part of the Hamas-run political authority, including ordinary police. Only attacks on military targets are permissible, and only in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties." "Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose." And later, the definition: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' [224] is very partial (and apparently inaccurate) quotation of HRW itself. So, what I propose is that the full definition is given: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' This is significant, since the second part of the definition that I emphasized was simply taken out. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to explain this exact point here. There are some refs there you can use. Good luck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the second sentence, [224] I see it as a partial (and apparently inaccurate) quotation of HRW itself. I am not an expert, but in my comprehension, "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities" contradicts the definition. The definition, provided by HRW itself, says 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities'. I understand this that if a policeman is at the same time a member of the fighting force, it is not required to catch him launching rockets or engage in shooting. Anyway, for now I can live with the second sentence, but I hope there will be finally broad consensus on the first one.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Mr ex-Nice Guy, this is simply astounding!: http://www.btselem.org/english/Legal_Documents/HCJ_769_02_20061214_Targeted_killing_Ruling_Summary_Eng.doc

I think we can cite whole paragrphs out of there. Cheers.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So, we agree on the point. Still, I have to emphasize once again: this is not a matter of interpretation. I argue that the first sentence taken from [223] is partial out of context misquoting of the source itself.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You will also notice that here and here HRW says it is legitimate to target the homes and offices of Hamas and Hizbollah military commanders. They don't need to be shooting at anyone at the time. The main misunderstanding here is that some people want to believe that "taking direct part in hostilities" means "shooting someone right this second". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To emphasize it with Summary of Judgment from HCJ:'a civilian who has joined a terrorist organization and commits a chain of hostilities, with short periods of rest between them, loses his immunity from attack for the entire time of his activity. For such a civilian, the rest between hostilities is nothing other than preparation for the next act of hostilities'. The hostilities between Gaza and Israel didn't start in December 2008 and didn't end in January 2009 (unfortunately)Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

'A civilian who violates this principle and takes direct part in hostilities does not lose his status as a civilian, but as long as he is taking a direct part in hostilities he does not enjoy the protections granted to a civilian. He is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject'. It might be OK from PCHR to count policemen with double affiliation as 'civilians' but it is OK to target those policemen and this is of course an important distinction. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, maybe we should take this to combatant where we can get some more eyes which are not involved in this specific conflict, and once we get the whole thing hashed out there, we can apply the conclusions to other articles where relevant. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, though I doubt it will be read soon.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. A person is either a combatant or a non-combatant. A person is either a civilian, or a member of an armed force. You can be a civilian and a combatant. You can be a member of an armed force and a non-combatant. The fact PCHR uses "civilians/non-combatants" is misleading in and of itself. How do they classify civilian combatants like (to give an extremely obvious example) someone who's not a member of any organization who takes his personal hunting rifle and joins a battle? They can put him in either column and still be technically correct. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the deepest knowledge about the issue, yet try to reconsider the status of a policemen in Palestine first, and I am not very sure the Palestine policemen even do carry guns. So that might be a reason, I will check the issue. Also even if they do carry guns, policemen in no country has any heavy-weapons that can object against armed troops like IDF, which carry heavy artillery that can even resist to any soldier that equipped heavily. The result would be instant death, against bullet-proof jackets of IDF, or tanks, or jets anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, you find, Kasaalan, some very original arguments. Whether or not police in Gaza carries guns is irrelevant. What is relevant is how come many of the policemen killed have simultaneously double duties in police and Hamas. Go read Obituaries for Fathi al-Kurd, police officer and at the same time artillery unit commander in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e067.htm. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Asked an expert about the situation, and Gaza policemen carry guns, and even rifles time to time for various reasons, my mistake. I also sent a letter to PCHR about the issue. Yet, PCHR may not be able to get every record, so while they listed them as policemen, they might not know they were also member of armed wing of Hamas. Moreover since the counter sources also POV, we should also check if their claims are true. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We got carried away. The prime reason this section was started is this: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223]', which is POV citation of [223]: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/30/israelgaza-civilians-must-not-be-targets. It should be 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

During the strike noone can distinct, if a policeman is Hamas militant or not, so if the policeman shoots he is not civilian but if he doesn't shoot the policeman should be called civilian. Kasaalan (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting fully is more helpful. I agree on taking full quote.

Human Rights Watch noted that many of Israel's airstrikes, especially during the first day, targeted police stations as well as security and militia installations controlled by Hamas. According to the Jerusalem Post, an attack on the police academy in Gaza City on December 27 killed at least 40, including dozens of cadets at their graduation ceremony as well as the chief of police, making it the single deadliest air attack of the campaign to date. Another attack, on a traffic police station in the central Gaza town of Deir al-Balah, killed a by-stander, 12-year-old Camilia Ra`fat al-Burdini. Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.

Also the report you provided clearly shows IDF even bombed graduation ceremony of police students, dozens of students killed in 1 strike. So when they bomb policemen and police students, expecting police to not involve situation is a bit of a dream. They even bombed traffic police station. So how a graduation ceremony can violate international rules for police to be called civilians. So at least we know 40 of the policemen that killed should be considered as civilians. Some rare policemen might have been members of armed wing of Hamas, but that cannot justify dozens of police candidate's bombing in their graduation. Kasaalan (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Was it right to bomb the policeman? Maybe. Maybe not. But what the heck does this have to do with writing the article? We don't have to decide for ourselves whether or not Israelis are devils or are saints. This is not our mission.

The article says: HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.[223] and IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police assist rocket launching squads, however HRW argues that "even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities".[224]

This fairly represents what HRW thinks. I don't see how there can be a dispute here. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue Sceptic Ashdod brought up here is that [224] which is a newspaper piece contradicts what HRW says in [223] which is its own publication. To wit, "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.". The BBC piece is unsourced in its claim of what HRW says about the issue. That is the dispute. I'm new here. What's the procedure in such a case? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is some more info from HRW:

extended quote from HRW collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
May Israel lawfully attack police stations and police personnel in Gaza? Israel has launched repeated attacks on police stations in Gaza, killing and injuring large numbers of police. The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets. 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. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack.

I think from that we can say the following regarding HRW's position:

Human Rights Watch has stated that police are presumptively civilians unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. (note: I dont think we need to formally incorporated into the armed forces, Gaza has no formal army) If they do take part in hostilities they may be attacked while actively participating in the hostilities. HRW also stated that police stations are presumptively civilians unless they are being used for military purposes, sush as serving as military headquarters or storing weapons. However, even if the police stations are legitimate targets, laws concerning proportionality dictate that disproportionate harm to civilians, including police, does not occur. source

Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're playing fast and lose with the definition of "armed forces". Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza and AlQassam Brigades are their official army, with a diciplined chain of command, etc. You don't really think that they get extra protection because they deliberately refuse to distinguish themselves from the local population by wearing a uniform or insignia, do you? In fact, they get less. They are unpriviledged combatants.
Anyway, both your HRW quote and mine specifically say Hamas fighters are legitimate targets. Also, for the 15th time, "taking active part in the hostilities" doesn't mean "participating in a battle right now", as the fact that military commanders may be targetted in their homes and places of work proves. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is still going on. We need to get past this. No, Nableezy isn't playing fast and lose with the definition with the definition of "armed forces". He's just using the same definition used by the Supreme Court of Israel, HRW, ICRC i.e. the definition in the Third Geneva Convention. No one, not the Surpreme Court of Israel, not the IDF, not the IDF's lawyers, not HRW, not ICRC, not the UN, absolutely nobody has said that Hamas are the "armed forces of a party to a conflict" in the way that HRW use the phrase and are therefore entitled to POW status etc. They are not "armed forces of a party to a conflict". It's irrelevant so it could be excluded because as you say they are a type of civilian behaving as a combatant, an 'unpriviledged combatant' or 'unpriviliged civilian' or 'illegal combatant' whatever term is used, they mean the same thing and can be attacked under certain circumstances. Those circumstances most certainly are disputed and very obviously so. The IDF's views are the IDF's views [27]. They aren't shared by many others. What are some of their views ?

• Is it okay to kill a traffic cop or a cadet on parade ? Yes. Why ? Because the IDF's lawyers categorize them as part of a "resistance force in the event of..etc". That is controversial.
• Is there evidence that the individuals actually are part of a resistance force ? It doesn't matter to the IDF's lawyers because it's not based on evidence about individuals. That is controversial.
• Is it okay to kill people (let's say a child) in a house containing a suspected 'illegal combatant' or who re-enter a house after an IDF warning even if those people aren't Hamas people. Yes. Why ? Because the IDF's lawyers catagorize them as either "voluntary human shields" or "are taking part in the fighting" merely by their presence. That is controversial.
• Is it okay to assassinate a person because they are a suspected member of an organization ? Yes. Why ? Because they are a "terrorist operative". Terrorists are regarded as being "directly engaged in hostilities" all the time by the IDF's lawyers no matter what they are actually doing. Legalization of assassination is very unusual indeed and is one of the best examples for me to illustrate the difference between the IDF approach and others e.g. you won't see the army in the UK firing missiles from drones at suspected terrorists in the Pakistani communities in Northern England because, well, they might have a few legal problems. You will see them occasionally assassinating Brazilian people who they think are just about to detonate a suicide belt. That illustrates the radical difference in interpretation of 'directly engaged in hostilities'.

We aren't here to decide/discuss whether the IDF approach is right/wrong, legitimate/illegitimate, legal/illegal etc etc. Things are just going round and round in circles. We just need to accept that there are differences in legal interpretations and point out the differences between the IDF's lawyers permissive, broad approach to these matters and the opinions of others if it helps to clarify a dispute over the status of a casualty or the legality of an action.

We should also not forget to mention that the PCHR classify 255 policemen as civilians and 28 as militants. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're playing fast and lose with what I said, as evidenced by you bringing up POW status when I said "unprivileged combatants". But never mind that. Your WP:soapboxing isn't of much interest to me either, to be honest. Feel free to erect as many strawmen as you like, and then knock them down if that makes you happy.
I did post in the wrong section though. I was talking about how PCHR catigorzises Hamas fighters as civilian/non-combatant, not about the status of police in general, and for that I apologize. If you have any ICRC refs regarding Hamas fighters' status as non-combatants, I'd be happy to see them, as I mentioned earlier. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually actively participating means right now. No more nice guy is wrong on on that. Nableezy (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Bears are actively participating in the NFL despite not playing a game right now. "Hostilities" denotes something ongoing, not a one time event. Again, the fact it is legitimate to target a military commander at his home or office proves you don't have to be doing something right now to be actively involved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for appealing to my other sensitivities, but it is a tad different. Below is an ICRC source that spells out what the phrase means, and it does mean while actively participating. You are using definitions that are not in line with what the sources say. A military commander is not equivalent to a police officer, a military commander by definition is not a civilian. We have sources that say "while actively participating" not "once having participated". Nableezy (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I have no interest whatsoever in soapboxing. My personal views on whether the IDF approach is right/wrong/pragmatic/illegal etc etc are 100% irrelevant. All soapboxing absolutely has to stop on this talk page because it just gets in the way. I was simply providing some pertinent examples where the IDF's lawyers views are a) considered to be controversial by others and b) can produce a mismatch in casualty catagorization. I'll say it again, we just need to accept that there are differences in legal interpretations. And I mentioned "armed forces of a party to a conflict" and POW status specifically because you said Hamas are the "official army". Official "privileged combatant" armies aren't made up of "unprivileged combatants". Even the IDF's lawyers haven't tried to have that cake and eat it. Shalit is not an "unprivileged combatant" even if the people holding him in effect categorize and treat him as one by withholding POW rights. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

you won't see the army in the UK firing missiles from drones at suspected terrorists in the Pakistani communities in Northern England because, well, they might have a few legal problems If memory serves me, the British did do essentially that. They had a shoot-to-kill policy of Irish criminal suspects. They even freaking allied themselves with Loyalist terrorists/gangsters to assist them on this. They committed acts against civilian people who did nothing military just because those civilians were connected to the IRA.

This is soapboxing, obviously. But gosh-darn-it I feel offended It's stupid, but still.The Squicks (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I am starting it for the third time already, cause you (Nableezy, Squicks, Kasaalan) simply fail to understand what we are discussing here. We are not discussing here legitimacy or justification of some attacks on police, we are not discussing policemen status, we are not discussing here proportionality. We might discuss it in Int. law section. What we are discussing is how can you say (in the 'disputed figures') the following sentence represents what HRW thinks: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification.'? Claiming that they dispute IDF is like saying they pick a side here, which is simply intrue. They pick no side. HRW is not disputing anything. They merely say: '"Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets," Stork said. "It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose." And later, the definition: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' So, again, they say it depends. What we should do here is either provide definition by HRW or full citation of Stork.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that 'HRW dispute IDF combatant classification of the policemen' is erroneous for one more reason. [223] refers to legality of the attacks on police, not their classification as militants or civilians.

If we are sticking to HRW, here is, again, an excerpt from HRW's Q&A regarding legal aspects of the conflict (and not classification issue, emphasis mine): '...The legality of such attacks depends on a number of factors; it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets.'; '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. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' 'Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities. Without further research on the ground, it is not yet possible to determine whether the police stations struck by Israel served any military purpose, and were therefore legitimate objects of attack. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/31/q-hostilities-between-israel-and-hamas#_May_Israel_lawfully. Same applies of course to mosques. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What I try to show here, is that HRW is neither justifying nor condemnig the legality of the attacks on the police. They say it depends on number of factors. Attempting to interpret their words in pro-IDF or pro-Hamas way should not be the task of Wiki editors. So, the wording here should be edited to neutral. HRW is neither disputing nor arguing with IDF. Both sentences are wrong.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with what I wrote above? Nableezy (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote Human Rights Watch has stated that police are presumptively civilians unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. For 11th time already, this is not what HRW says. This is what it does say: 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Do you notice the difference? This is first. Second, you write 'If they do take part in hostilities they may be attacked while actively participating in the hostilities' and later 'Actually actively participating means right now'. This is interpretation, taken out of context. This is because you omit in HRW statement, 'unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities'. [side note: from the Israeli side, it is simply irrelevant whether they are taking a direct part in hostilities or not, since from the Israeli perspective they all are Hamas fighters, simultaneously and constantly, because by definition the police there is incorporated in the Hamas military wing, in the same way border police in Israel is incorporated in the IDF.] Third, all the above, and proportionality issue you mentioned, does not belong in 'disputed figures' section but in Int. law section. [223] and all the HRW links here do not dispute or argue with IDF classification of policemen as militants but examine issues of legality of the attack on the police. Finally, and this is important for you and all the others to grasp: when dealing with the police issue (not some particular strikes but the concept in general) HRW are not saying in the links provided IDF was entitled or not. They cite int. law and either we cite it completely or do not cite it at all. Hope I made myself clear. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see the difference. But this is an exact quote from 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." I didnt write "right now" in my proposed text, I wrote it in response to NMMNG. Again, this is a direct quote from the source cited above: "poice who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." How would you phrase "whenever and for such time as actively participating in hostilities". Here is some more from the ICRC: "direct participation in hostilities by civilians entails loss of immunity from attack during the time of such participation and may also subject them, upon capture, to penal prosecution under the domestic law of the detaining state." and later "Within these parameters, little doubt exists that a civilian carrying out an attack would be directly participating in hostilities. In the same vein, legal experts seem to agree that civilians preparing or returning from combat operations are still considered to be directly participating in hostilities, although precise indication as to when preparation begins and return ends remains controversial." It is clear that active or direct participation means for the time they are participating in hostilities. Nableezy (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I deal with police stations in "HRW also stated that police stations are presumptively civilian unless they are being used for military purposes, such as serving as military headquarters or storing weapons. However, even if the police stations are legitimate targets, laws concerning proportionality dictate that disproportionate harm to civilians, including police, does not occur." which is based off "Police stations are presumptively civilian objects. However, if a police station is being used for military purposes, such as a Hamas military headquarters or a place to store weapons for use in fighting, that station could be subject to lawful attack. Such attacks in any case must not cause disproportionate civilian loss, and so must factor in any reasonably anticipated harm to police or others who are not participating in the hostilities." from the source. Nableezy (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And I didnt omit anything, I was using a different source, the entire text of which you can see in the collapsed section above. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, friend, I have to run now, stay tuned. Right now, reread this paragraph and we will talk later: '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. Thus, police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, we have a consensus on what the sources say. Now let's go back to the reason I started it all. The sentence in 'disputed figures' says: 'HRW stated that police officers are presumptively civilians, disputing IDF combatants classification' [223]. Can anybody show me (without going into interpretations of int. law) where exactly does [223] dispute IDF combatants classification?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I *think* I see your point, they did not 'dispute' that the policemen were combatants, they disputed the reasoning (which Israel has given as 'anybody associated with Hamas is a valid target'). That is in this quote, again in the collapsed section above: "it is incorrect to assert that police and police stations in Gaza are automatically valid military targets." I see your issue with the language, how would this work for you:

The IDF has stated that police and police stations are valid targets as they are associated with the Hamas government. HRW has said that an assertion that police and police stations are "automatically valid military targets" is incorrect and that a number of factors determine whether or not police and police stations can be considered as valid targets. (and also include the PCHR response to the IDF saying that the police are valid targets).

Will get a source for each statement, Nableezy (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to speak for Skeptic here, but that a number of factors determine whether or not police and police stations can be considered as valid targets seems to me to be problematic. It's not like HRW was deliberately vague about what those factors are/were. They were quite specific about it, and it seems to me to be a bit confusing or possibly even misleading to the reader not to mention exactly what those factors are/were.

The terminology "is incorrect" also seems a bit... off. What they are arguing about is their interpretation of international law. A spelling test answer is either correct or incorrect. Same thing for a math test answer. As a matter of interpretation of something, one person can make a really lousy case, but that would not make them incorrect in that sense. The phrase "HRW disagrees with this interpretation" makes more sense.

"they are associated with" seems inaccurate. The IDF is not bombing anyone just because they voted for Hamas or because they took a flu shot from one of their offices or whatever tangent association. "they serve" or something along those lines would be more accurate.

This is the worst sort of nitpicking, I know. But I hope that you can see where I am coming from. The Squicks (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Im just trying to avoid bloating the casualties section, my thinking was the 'number of factors' can go in the international law section. But if yall want it here too that is fine by me. Re 'they are associated with', we have a source explicitly saying that as the given reason by Israel, will look for it later tonight, but if you have better language by all means put it up. Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good news, guys. We are, at last, making progress. Yes, Nableezy, in [223] HRW are not disputing classification of the fatalities. They are addressing the issue to what extent are attacks on the police are lawfully justified. So, we are kind of agree this belongs to the int. law section. Next, 'The IDF has stated that police and police stations are valid targets as they are associated with the Hamas government' is misleading. It is true that IDF targeted many government installations for that reason, but to say that policemen and police facilities were targeted merely because they are associated with the Hamas government is oversimplification. The main reason, and I will provide you with sources, is because police as a whole is incorporated in the Hamas' military wing and many policemen actually hold Hamas' military wing rankings and command posts simultaneously to their work in police. This is why it is crucial, and I am glad The Squicks realizes it, to mention those factors exactly as they are. Finally, [223] say that 'Israel must not make a blanket decision that all police and police stations are by definition legitimate military targets, Stork said. It depends upon whether those police play a role in fighting against Israel, or whether a particular police station is used to store weapons or for some other military purpose.' I will repeat again - regarding police and police stations, Israel did not make a neither blanket nor arbitrary decision on this matter. Thus, saying that HRW 'argues' or 'disputes' with IDF is erroneous. Both sentences in 'disputed figures' section are inappropriate. What 'disputed figures' section must say is that 'PCHR civilian count included those killed in what the PCHR assessed were non-combat situations' (almost there in the text) and that 'IDF regards all the policemen killed as militants' (still missing, but we will work it out). Nableezy, The Squicks, do you understand what I am trying to say? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat paradoxically, but 'The IDF's views are the IDF's views' as Sean said. This is the first (but definitely not the last) of sources to support the above. Go here [28] '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. 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'. I am not trying, guys, to convince you all the IDF attacks on police and police facilities were justified. It can be disputable. But the arguments and counterarguments must be conveyed precisely. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Next, here [29], 'Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters'. Not because they are 'associated' with Hamas, but because they are 'equivalent of armed fighters'.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another link here [30]. 'The civilian police in itself not a military target, but where the police is part of the military establishment, as it was under Hamas, it becomes a legitimate target'. INSS, btw, is The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an independent academic institute that studies key issues relating to Israel's national security and Middle East affairs. Is it neutral? Maybe not. Is it RS? I think it falls within definitions of Wiki RS. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The anything associated with Hamas line is from a BBC source quoting an unnamed Israeli spokesman:

But when an Israeli military spokesman also says things like "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," things get complicated.

later on it also includes this definition from Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." I agree the bulk of the issue should be covered in international law, but I think it partially belongs in the casualties, as we say that the IDF counted police as combatants while the PCHR and PMoH did not, we should briefly explain why in that section. Will look at your links in a bit, just wanted to let you know I didnt pull 'anything associated' out from nowhere. Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And for NMMNG, that source also contains this: "However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities." Nableezy (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, one suggestion. It would help a bit if you could say exactly what changes you want to make to the section and what sources you want to use. I feel we are going around in circles arguing about slightly different things (and combining the argument on what the intl law section should say and what the casualties section should say). Would you mind drawing up your idea of what to change? Nableezy (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC is nothing if not a reliable source, but the attribution of the term 'affiliated' these is questionable. It's a paraphrase of an off the record anonymous source.

For something with this degree of vehement dispute, I would preferably stick to the official released statements. This goes for Hamas too. Something along the lines of The IDF said that it believes that Gaza police and Gaza police agents as inherently equivalent to or something along those lines. The Squicks (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

How about= The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza police and police stations as inherently equivilent to armed soliders since, it believes, Hamas has incorporated them into its military wing. HRW has said that police and police stations constitue valid targets only if they are targeted when they actively participate in hostilites. The PCHR (...) The Squicks (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more or less agnostic as to whether or not we should refer to (an) Israeli think tank(s) if we also refer to the PCHR. It depends on whether or not notability can be demonstrated as well as whether or not that group is part of the Israeli government vs really independent. The Squicks (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I really dont think you can compare a human rights organization with a think tank. That said, notability and due weight would be the only real concerns for using them, so long as their views are explicitly attributed to them. Nableezy (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didnt take that as a paraphrase, I took that as a direct quote from an unnamed Israeli military spokesman. Nableezy (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

INSS was named in top 5 think-tanks in ME and North Africa, btw. [31]. Are we agreed on notability? I guess I already said they are independant, but if there is doubt I will search for additional proofs. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We are getting closer. The first sentence of The Squick's proposal is more or less fine. The wording is not perfect, but the meaning is almost accurate. I will provide shortly my version. The second sentence is inaccurate. It should be 'HRW has said that police and police stations constitues valid target only if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities' [32] or '...if the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities.' [33].--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC). I deliberately omitted 'police stations', they can be addressed in int. law section, but irrelevant to fatalities figures. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, let me remind you that if we are (and we indeed are) discussing changes to 'disputed figures' section, it is better and more appropriate to rely on sources released after the fatalities numbers published, and not before. I insist this is more appropriate: 'Israel has made clear it regards police under the control of the Islamist Hamas rulers of Gaza as the equivalent of armed fighters'. [34]. so, actually, the first sentence from the Squick's proposal can go like this: 'The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed soliders fighters, thus including them in the militant's count.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, agree with parts, disagree with others. Much of the commentary on the legality of targeting police came after the first few days of initial strikes, which were largely targeted at police and police stations. Sources commenting on the legality of the issue itself are fine from whenever. But, I am fine with the sentence you put above for Israel's position. I am also fine with "HRW has said that police constitute valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". But I would also add "are presumptively civilians" with a result of "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". Nableezy (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

also, remove the "thus" from your sentence. Nableezy (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC [35] with all due respect to RS, fails here. It says: 'Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities'. However, both here [36] and here [37] HRW actually says that policemen can be targeted if 'the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities.' Moreover, HRW elaborates that 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' The confusion arises from concentrating on the second sentence, while ignoring the first. This is why, I repeat, it is crucial to provide the exact wording from HRW and not rely on the tetriary source. This is why the second sentence from the article is erroneous.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree again, but I dont see a conflict between the two, as the next sentence in the q&a hrw source says: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." The BBC, which attributes this to HRW, is just qualifying what "such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Nableezy (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule we prefer secondary sources to primary ones on wiki. See WP:PRIMARY. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh! We are almost there. "HRW has said that police are presumptively civilians but may be are considered valid targets if formally incorporated into the armed forces of a party to a conflict or directly participating in the hostilities". OK?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"The IDF has stated that it considers Gaza policemen to be inherently equivilent to armed fighters, including them in the militant's count". OK?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BBC, I wrote and I repeat again, that both sentences are equally important: 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack, while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted. Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities.' BBC says IDF has evidence some policeman launch rockets from time to time. If this is the case, the second sentence you retyped is correct. However, and I will not cease to say it, this is not the only case. IDF regards policemen in Gaza as inherently equivilent to armed fighters. Thus, the first sentence is equally important. Now a side note (and let's not make the whole story from it) - as I understood Wiki policies, HRW here is a secondary source, since they provide the reader with definitions from int. law, which thus is a primary source. BBC, citing HRW, become tetriary and less reliable source. From all the above, I kindly ask to reconsider the sentence from the 'disputed figures' section that cite BBC.--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since no one responds, I will chatter with myself a bit. Perhaps what is confusing here is to realize the simultaneous double affiliation of police in Gaza. I guess what my opponents think is that a policeman in Gaza can sometimes be engaged in terrorist actions and be the regular poliveman all the other time. This is why they cite that sentence from HRW q&a: "Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities." Indeed, an individual can't be working at two jobs at the same time, can he? He can go to one at the day shift, and to another at the night shift. However, there is no contradiction at all - one is a son of his parents and at the same time he is a brother to his parents' children. The same with police in Gaza - from Israeli POV, the police there is incorporated in Hamas' military wing, similar to the border police in Israel. Thus, the question 'whether policeman X was killed in combat situation or not' is irrelevant. He could be a orchestra musician or clerk - he is part of armed forces to the conflict. The same applies, as mentioned, to border police in Israel.

I thought of an analogy that might help understand why citing only Police who engage in both ordinary law enforcement and at times in fighting would, like other civilians, be subject to attack whenever and for such time as they were actively participating in the hostilities is erroneous. You are taking driving lessons, and your instructor tells you that if you see a yellow light while approaching junction with lights, you should go on moving if already entered the junction and stop if you are before junction. Would this be incorrect? No, the statement is correct. But what about red and green lights? The same applies here. Citing merely the sentence above is covering the 'yellow light' issue. The previous sentence is eually important: 'police only engaged in ordinary police roles, such as regulating traffic or ordinary law enforcement, would not be subject to lawful attack (red light), while those who are Hamas fighters can be targeted (green light).' Since Israel regards police in Gaza as incorporated in Hamas' military wing, all the policemen from IDF perspective are 'green light'. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"war in the south"

does one hebrew source qualify this for the lead? untwirl(talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there are a lot of sources for it if you do a google search, but i dont think it is really needed and is somewhat unnecessary bloat. but i dont have too much of a problem keeping it. Nableezy (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this doesn't help but I have heard it on the radio (mmm... so I say) from a guy who was there. I'm sure there will be more out there if you google it.Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article rename

I know that this topic has been discussed many times before, and no consensus has been reached so far, but wouldn't 2008/2009 war on Gaza be a far better title than the current vague one? Imad marie (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza War is appropriate. The War on Gaza is not. Israel was not waging war on Gaza but in Gaza against a terrorist organization.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

on implies that the war happened between two unmatched entities. Still, "Gaza War" is better than the current title. Imad marie (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, right. One is terrorist's nest (no offense intended towards those who are really innocent uninvolved civilians) and another is sovereign state. If you are an expert in martial arms, surrounded by bunch of hooligans, does it mean you can't use your skills to defend yourself? Having a military advantage over the adversary is legal. Nice try, though. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try for what? What did I try? And in what way does the title I suggest imply that Israel should not use it's military?! if you can't make constructive comments then maybe you should not make ones at all. Imad marie (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree Offensive on Gaza, or War on Gaza seems more accurate and these are names that can be found in reliable sources. Don't mind sceptic's soapboxing/hasbara, if anything his comments brings no relevance to the discussion. Anyway, I think we can reopen the discussion to find a better and accurate title. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not Gaza massacre then?Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider that name to very accurate. These antisemitic terrorists do as well. But our personal feelings do not matter. For NPOV reasons, and the fact that this name is not a name used in Western reliable sources, we will have to stick to a neutral name like Offensive on Gaza or Gaza War. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Like War on Cancer? The "war on X" seems to be used mainly where X is something abstract like War on Drugs or War on Terrorism. I think that "<date> <location> conflict" is the best NPOV way to describe a conflict that doesn't have an obvious commonly used name.
By the way, nice picture and title. Way to promote constructive discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the compliment. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting all the nonsense in the past, I would hope we can agree that major news sources have used the 'Gaza War/war' as the name of this conflict and from there it should be trivial agreeing that if that is the case then we should also be using that as the name. Can we agree to that? And if so, does somebody want to start a RfM and go through the filing procedure? Nableezy (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not discussing this again, and I'm forsure not doing anything that involves any procedure. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well every single person who has commented in this section, from as far as I can tell most of the POV spectrum agrees that Gaza War should be the title. I will take care of the process for my more lazy Semitic cousin. Nableezy (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's from my grandfather. He was so lazy, he was always packing for his international trips at the last minute. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I heard that used toothbrushs are smuggled to Gaza through terrorist nest tunnels to mitigate the brutal dental hygiene blockade imposed by Israel. People are apparently having to pick their teeth with rocket and gun parts most the time. Dentists are having to hide as they're been categorized by IDF lawyers as part of a plaque resistance force. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

After the 10th person got stabbed to death with a sharpened toothbrush, you can't be too careful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Gas Reserve

Why there is nothing in the article about Gaza gas reserve and what Israel and British Gas are doing about it? Here's something to read:

• War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza's Offshore Gas Fields

--Saba84 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably because neither belligerent has mentioned it though reliable sources and there's no development plan for the field yet. Not sure what you mean about "Israel and British Gas". BG pulled out of Israel and are trying to get rid of their one remaining Israeli licence block. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War — The major sources use Gaza War/Gaza war as the name of the conflict, for a sampling: AP [38] [39], Reuters [40], Washington Post [41] [42], Haaretz [43], BBC [44] [45], The Times [46], The Guardian [47] [48] [49], CNN [50] [51], Newsweek [52] [53], Time [54] [55] — Nableezy (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support most popular name in mainstream English language sources. Tiamut^talk 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support - per Nableezy's excellent rationale. Nableezy (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded. I'd also note that this name is not the one preferred by either party, is the most popular one in mainstream English language sources and thus abides by WP:NAME and WP:NPOV. The names preferred by each of the belligerents should remain in bold in the lead paragraph as usual. Tiamut^talk 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fine Not a name that I prefer but I can live with it. It is a name that is commonly used in English RS. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • Hear you Falastine fee Qalby, beating in my heart loud and clear, but the "War on Gaza" while used by Al Jazeera English (and more accurate given Gazans have no army to speak of in the conventional sense) was not as widespread as Gaza War, and we have to go to with what the English sources say here. Tiamut^talk 20:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So are you guys only voting yes purely as a temporary stepping stone to change the title later? The Squicks (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading that again, that sounds more like a personal attack than an honest question. I absolutely didn't mean it that way. I'm just asking whether or not ya'll would like to put that to a vote as well, and make arguements about that as well, and so on. The Squicks (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Though not loudly ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support as per RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support If only it was this easy to get Israelis and Palestinians to agree elsewhere... The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks like this is what it's being called by major English speaking news outlets. I hope this solves the stupidity in the lead, too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Should it be 'Gaza War' or 'The Gaza War'?--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid definite and indefinite articles at the start of names. It does not constitute "the title of a work", and "the" is not normally capitalized within a sentence.google:"The Gaza War" 199.125.109.124 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Too ambiguous. Several wars have occurred in Gaza, and many have been referred to as the "Gaza War" by mainstream media. I think we are taking their naming out of context. I'd prefer 2008-2009 Gaza War, though I'm totally ok with the current title. At least we won't have to change it when the next "Gaza War" erupts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you give an example of another event known as the Gaza War? Nableezy (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support About timeCptnono (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is too long, this one is shorter, and the conflict term, is too small for a big scale war like this anyway. If the name is too ambigious maybe we can call it as 2009 Gaza War or 2009 Gaza Strike. Yet a naming convention is required. Kasaalan (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Far much better and more descriptive than the current title. Imad marie (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Are we going to be changing 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict as well? What about the other pages in the series? The Squicks (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't treat this as a part of that 'series'. Here we have a clearly defined event and the scope of the article shows that. If there are any other articles in that series that deal with a clearly defined event then those should be renamed to whatever the event is known by. Here we have a pretty clear answer, those not as much. Nableezy (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A naming convention is required, he has a good point. If we don't have a naming convention that might lead to confusion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just have to mention that history prevailed on this one. How many times was this title floated? Hope all the other bullshit gets fixed sooner or later (3-8 mos) and pro-whatthefuckever editors won't be so butt hurt when changes are made that make their side look bad. Thank whatever God the headlines are done with on this issue. While I'm humping my soapbox over here how about you forget about this article so the littlest garbage that is not important such as the title, the 1ooMkb , irreverent images, the fucked up law section, and whatever else is on the mind of some idiot who wants to use wikipedia like a blog is reworked into an actual piece of work that doesn't favor one side or the other. How many times was this title floated?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Also just noticed that peoples votes were changing: Grow some balls and stick to your convictions or at the very least stop warping articles to suite your ideas.Cptnono (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Exercise in Math

Someone added the following to the disputed figures subsection: 'Cremonesi also quotes Christopher Oberlin, a French government doctor, "the Israelis say that only 30% of the Palestinian victims are civilians. This is a blatant lie, and I am ready to testify to that before any international tribunal. The exact opposite is true: at least 80% of the victims are children, including babies, women, and old people. What they are doing here is shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it". First of all, [227] is in Italian. It would be nice to read the translation of the entire article in English. Secondly, this highly emotional statement could have been relevant before, but not after the fatalities report. Let us recall the PCHR data: PCHR puts the death toll at 1,417, of which 926 were civilian, 236 were combatants and 255 were members of the Palestinian security forces; out of 926 civilians and non-combatants, there are 116 women and 313 minors under 18. This leaves us with 497 males above 18. I put PCHR list in Excel, and there are indeed 497 males above 18, out of which 97 males above 50 (50 is because the oldest militant/policeman is about 50). All in all, we got 116+313+97=526 children, women and elder males, 37%. Males 18-50 are 236+255+400=891, 63%. How come the group that constitutes less than 25% of the general population (we should have counted 97 elder males to match 25% of the population), comprises 63% of the fatalities? Even if we examine just the civilian fatalities, 400 males 18-50 out of 926 is 43%, closer to 50% than to 25%. Is this an idea of shooting at civilian society without making too much fuss about it? For those who would say I am soapboxing again and making original research, I would reply that this week ICT released similar report, examining PCHR own data, reaching the same conclusions. Since I intend to insert it in the article, wouldn't Oberlin's words seem somewhat embarrassing? Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Just because Christopher Oberlin may happen to not be right does not automatically make him un-notable. We quote Hamas on this page several times, when the vast majority of our readers probably consider them to be full of it. See WP:TRUTH. The Squicks (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, don't look at that. The Squicks (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually made almost the same point about the other Cremonesi article, specially on this "Secondly, this highly emotional statement could have been relevant before, but not after the fatalities report." Dude, believe me, Cremonesi's statement stood in the article for a long time, and it was removed after better numbers came from PCHR and the IDF. That people find use still for it, its beyond me(but not beyond reasoning, since it is inserted now for POV-pushing). This article you are addressing now, was inserted by a fool, but that fool tried and tried not to do it, because it is a travesty, unnecessary really, but nothing like contradicting Cremonesi with Cremonesi. Numbers don't seem to add up on neither of the reports. But, on Wiki grounds I don't see anything wrong with it, specially since there is a link, on Italian, to another of Cremonesi's reports. By the way, Nishidani would be able to translate the rest of the report if he's up to it, don't tell him I sent you though. Cryptonio (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Oberlin's notability or verifiability of his statement. I think this statement, more political than factual, adds nothing to article's encyclopedian value. However, if there is general consensus - let it stay. I merely try to draw the attention of the editors that his numbers, when compared to those of the PCHR, look ridiculous. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The same should be said about quotation of We’am Fares. According to PCHR, the total number of children below 18 is 22% (313 out of 1417), compared to his assessment that children below 14 alone constitute at least 35% of fatalities. Is someone is interested, I could tomorrow tell the exact number of children below 14, but I assure it will be less than 14%. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)