Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Tagged Section

I moved the most recent version of tag placed by Wikieditor to the section he is apparently concerned with. I say apparently because up and until now, there is still no clear explanation either of what the problem is or what the editor expects to be done about it. Therefore, editor is requested to explain here exactly what the problem is and what he would like done about said problem.Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The ceasefire is referenced in multiple sections including the lead -- this is a bad-faith and disruptive move and you were explicitly asked not to make any further changes to the tag until the discussion has resolved. Kindly restore the tag to its original position or I will report this as disruptive editing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fix the body first, that decides the lead, not the other way around. And you didn't answer the request, what is the problem and what is it you want done. I don't like RFC any more than you do, their merit is they avoid pointless useless discussion to no purpose. So pretend there is one and phrase your request accordingly.Selfstudier (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The content under dispute is present in multiple locations in the article, not a single section, and it is inappropriate to apply the tag only to a single section. You knew that this would be a contentious move, and your seeming only purpose in doing so is to take the tag out of immediate sight, with the effect of notifying fewer users. You are not entitled to decide which discussions are "pointless" because you disagree. An equal number of users have expressed views on both sides of the matter, with an active discussion pending above. An RfC is not required—the normal means of discussion are perfectly appropriate—I have no idea what "request" you are referring to which needs to be met for you to stop disruptively editing this page. Policy clearly indicates the tag is not to be removed at this time. This is the last time I am going to ask. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If what you want is to attract users then start an RFC, works every time. Failing that, explain what the problems are and what you want done and we will go from there.Selfstudier (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier Whether the talk page contains an RfC or a simple thread, either is sufficient for applying a tag at the top of the article for a content dispute that affects multiple sections including the lead. The rationale for raising the disagrement has been raised repeatedly above, and I do not have to repeat them to your satisifaction for you to follow basic guidelines regarding the application of tags. The justifications here you've offered are tendentious; You removed it merely because you disagree with the issue, which is disruptive, inappropriate, and in bad faith. Again, the proper course for you here would be to restore the tag to its original position. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Still not addressing the content issue, still arguing about the tag. You are now trying to say it affects multiple sections (this is new, you didn't mention this before, you just kept mentioning the NYT article and the ceasefire). Which sections? And why? We will then tag all of the ones affected. Tagging requires you to explain in talk and so far you haven't ((nor was there anything in the edit summary that applied the tag).Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

With reference to the unanswered question above (as well as the last comment in the preceding question) I hereby note that according to the guidelines

"It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given."

constitutes a sufficient reason for removal of the tag. The editor who placed the tag is once again requested to provide said satisfactory explanation.Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to keep the edit in question. Numerically, support for the edit outnumbers opposition 2-1, but consensus isn't just a vote (Wikipedia:Consensus). Editors properly applied the core policies of verifiability and neutral point of view to conclude that the article should not posit as a fact that Israel is to blame for the cease fire. Closed per request at WP:ANRFC, let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

---

RfC Question: Should this edit stay? -- GreenC 16:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit dispute: The article asserts factually, in the voice of Wikipedia, that Israel is to blame for breaking the cease fire.

Historical Background: In June 2008 Hamas and Israel agreed to a ceasefire. It largely held for a few months. Hamas dug a tunnel, possibly for defensive purposes or possibly offensive. Israel informed Hamas it would be attacking the tunnel to shut it down. 6 Hamas members were killed during the attack on the tunnel. Hamas retaliated with rockets into Israel. Thus leading to the Gaza War. (this is a brief summary of relevant points a fuller account is in the article)

Previous discussions: lengthy discussions above. -- GreenC 16:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Poll

• Support edit (as the editor). Per WP:V "We must not present opinion as fact".. There are multiple POVs (opinions) who is to blame. The IDF declared at the time of the attack they were not breaking the cease fire ie. they intended a 'surgical strike', they considered the tunnel a threat. Ignoring the POV of an accused party would be a NPOV violation. Other sources blame both sides, Encyclopedia Britannica: "the truce was threatened shortly thereafter as each accused the other of violations". Other sources describe what happened without assigning blame; if blame was straight forward why are these sources not saying so? See Protecting Civilians During Violent Conflict first 10 lines on page 256. Finally many sources do blame Israel, see the article and above. There are at least three different ways sources present what happened. There is WP:WEIGHT in the sources to blame Israel, and the article accurately reflects that weight, but asserting factually in the voice of Wikipedia "Israel is to blame" takes opinion to a level of absolute certainty. The sources do not support this and never could for such a complex and opinionated situation as the breaking of a cease fire that has incomplete information and conflicting accounts. -- GreenC 09:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Seem neutral statement of fact to me --Shrike (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Whether the raid was a justified preemptive measure defensive against military action by by H or an unprovoked violation of the ceasefire is a matter of interpretation, not fact. WP:PARTISAN scholars suggesting the latter should have their views attributed, specifically or generally. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to me (what do the bulk of RS say) a ceasefire is violated when someone fires, to me it does not matter if you tell anyone (did HAMAS object?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  Slatersteven, Building tunnel is a violation too. We should state facts and let that reader decide.What violation and what is not. --Shrike (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Do any RS say the tunnel was a violation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - there seems to be a misunderstanding of what NPOV requires. It requires POVs that are published by reliable sources to be presented in proportion to their prevalence among such sources. The IDF is not a reliable source. The only thing that reliable sources say about the IDFs view is that it is the IDFs view, but reliable sources assert, as a fact, that the IDFs view is not correct. The claim that but asserting factually in the voice of Wikipedia "Israel is to blame" takes opinion to a level of absolute certainty. The sources do not support this is quite obviously factually wrong. The sources do support this. Here are two:

  Baconi, Tareq (2018). Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-5036-0581-7. As domestic Palestinian talks faltered in late 2008, so did the ceasefire agreement with Israel. On November 4, in a dramatic escalation, Israel broke the ceasefire by raiding the Gaza Strip, citing preemptive self-defense against an attack tunnel that Hamas was allegedly building to capture Israeli soldiers. Hamas denied these accusations, noting that its tunnels were being built for defensive or economic purposes. It responded with a barrage of rockets over the border. This skirmish, although brief, demonstrated Israel's desire to end the ceasefire, as Hamas had anticipated. For its part, the movement sought the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Israel had not only failed to sufficiently relax the blockade, a key condition of the truce, but had evidently continued incursions into Gaza. This was even though Hamas had been remarkably effective, as Israeli security officials openly admitted, in enforcing the truce from the Gaza front.

  Poynting, S.; Whyte, D. (2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Critical terrorism studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 119-120. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9. it was actually broken by Israel on 4 November 2008, when Israel launched a raid into Gaza resulting in the deaths of six Hamas members. Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire - not firing rockets themselves, and reining in other Palestinian Groups. Hamas's adherence to the ceasefire was admitted by official Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev and the finer points were discussed in detail by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation with close links to the Israeli administration. A December 2008 report states that the small number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza during the ceasefire were fired 'by rogue terrorist organizations, and in some instance in defiance of Hamas'

  We should, as with all articles, follow the balance of sources, not report "some say the Earth is flat" in the name of seeking some false balance. nableezy - 16:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

We should as well include the UN report (this is the one to read if one wants to know what happened as opposed to what one thinks happened):

Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict Pages 62 onwards (Events occurring between the "ceasefire" of 18 June 2008 .... and the start of Israel's military operations in Gaza on 27 December 2008)

"254.After two months in which few incidents were reported, the ceasefire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip, which Israel stated was to close a cross-border tunnel that in Israel’s view was intended to be used by Palestinian fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers."

This is clear support for what the scholarly sources are saying and taken together, far outweigh 12 year old newspaper articles written without possession of all the relevant information.Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose we don't create false balance. We rely on what reliable sources say:
  • The evidence suggests Israel broke the ceasefire with a raid into the Gaza Strip that killed six Hamas men on 4 November[1]
  • it was Israel who broke the ceasefire with Hamas by blowing up one of the tunnels[2]
  • In the first place, it was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It did so on 4 November 2008, by launching a raid into Gaza that killed six Hamas fighters on the flimsy excuse that they were digging a turmel.[3]
  • Israel broke the ceasefire with a November 4, 2008, military raid into the Gaza Strip that killed six Hamas members, to which Hamas responded with rocket fire into southern Israel[4]
• We don't rely on what Israel or Hamas say or even your opinion. We rely on what reliable scholar sources say.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please keep lengthy arguments and quotes in the Discussion section and limit your votes in the Poll section to one or two concise sentences, referencing an applicable policy. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Neutral, factual, and policy compliant. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - No, we shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice, though it would be fine to state it as the opinion of a certain source or set of sources. The sources overall are obviously divided on the matter, as GreenC noted, so we should adopt a neutral perspective and not take sides. Ahiroy (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom, makes sense to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:WikiVoice. It's a fact that Israel raided the tunnel. Whether this constituted "breaking the cease fire", and also whether the tunnel itself constituted "breaking the cease fire", are matters of opinion. I would change "raid of" to "raid on" however. Adoring nanny (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Had I been neutrally asked to agree with the edit that is actually the subject of the RFC, I would likely have not objected. However, given the attempt to instead dress this up as being about the ceasefire in general rather than a specific edit, I am bound to oppose. One cannot just RFC away the overwhelming weight of reliable sources in favor of a few relatively weak sources.Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Green Idealigic (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussions

Comment RFC is malformed/undue since no-one has until now attempted to remove the edit that has been made although it is subject of a discussion. Suggest editor close this RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no obligation in policy to remove edit to start a RFC --Shrike (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about this RfC is "malformed," it addresses a content issue in the article and offers a proposal.Selfstudier Has repeatedly removed the dispute tag, claiming doing so was appropriate because there was "no RfC" on this page and on their talk page. Now SS views the RfC as inappropriate. Ridiculous, and disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment RFC is malformed/undue as its not neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

An RfC can't be "undue," any editor is entitled to make a content proposal via this method. Bickering over form is uncalled for; the RfC provides a brief and neutral summary. If you have specific objections to the proposal, you are free to articulate those here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The 'Historical Bakckground' is a good faith attempt to provide a brief summary of events and place them into context so new editors can quickly come up to speed and decide if they want to participate before diving into the lengthy and complex article and comment sections above. The RfC encourages readers to do that. -- GreenC 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Its still not neutral, read wp:rfc, and I said nothing about Undue, I said its not neutrally worded.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Do I need to quote your comment above? If you have a suggestion for GreenC as to how the wording might be revised, that would be more helpful than calling it generally malformed/undue. IMO, GreenC did a perfectly fine job with this summary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, take out any and all commentary and just ask the question (as wp:rfc instructs).Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A brief, neutral summary is appropriate. See WP:RFC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes "neutral" "this is the reality" is not neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've read the summary twice and have no idea what you're referring to. Sitting and complaining about the summary in general and vague terms is not helpful. If you believe an aspect of the four-line summary is incorrect, you are free to offer a suggestion and I'm sure GreenC will take it into account. Otherwise, try to focus on content instead of WP:WIKILAWYERING. Perfection is the enemy of the good, and the RfC does a perfectly adequate job of giving relevant background and making clear what's being proposed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it does not. This RFC is just smoke and mirrors for an argument that Israel is not to blame (RFC title "Who is to blame?") when Israel, by a vast majority of RS and in particular, scholarly RS, IS to blame (for the breakdown in the ceasefire).Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment There is a difference between "breaking the ceasefire" which both sides did from day one and an event leading to the "breakdown of the ceasefire" which is what occurred on 4 November. The oft mentioned solitary NYT article refers to a break of the ceasefire after November 4 but there were many of these (see the UN report) and these breaches only became serious after November 4, the de facto end of the ceasefire even if it nominally still had time to run. This RFC is trying to paint a different picture by its very wording.Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A cease fire is an agreement, not a literal lack of fire. An agreement is broken according to the opinions of participants, observers, historians, journalists and legal experts ie. it is a subjective opinion. Commonly, cease fires are a matter of dispute. -- GreenC 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is about as straightforward a matter as there can be. Reliable sources have expressed multiple views on the matter. Attribution is required per WP:V. Policy requires changes to the text in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment GreenC, I suggest to move your comment to here from RFC --Shrike (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment An additional issue is the linking of Cast Lead to the end of the ceasefire. Cast Lead need not have been launched merely because of the breakdown in the ceasefire, in fact it likely wasn't launched because of that or at least not solely because of that.Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Given your opinion, Should this edit stay? -- GreenC 14:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand, your RFC wording wrongly links the 2 things together, that's now 3 reasons why you should start over with this RFC. I am not going to vote this RFC because it's a wrong RFC for the reasons I have given.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? The RfC is narrowly focused on the wording surrounding the ceasefire arrangement. It does not address subsequent military operations following the end of the ceasefire. Stop jumbling the issues. The proposal here is clearly stated; if you have views on it, feel free to express them and cast a vote. Your endless quibbling over non-existent form issues and trying to conflate issues not raised in the RfC is tiresome. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The matter subject of the RFC is already in the article and no-one has tried to remove it so this RFC asking whether it should stay is just a waste of time and if you are claiming that this RFC addresses your tag, why is your tag still there? Alternatively, why are we having an RFC that doesn't address your tag?Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Having an RfC precede the edit is actually the diplomatic way to do things. We also don't hold RfCs on whether to apply tags; we hold RfCs on substantive content disputes, apply the tag to indicate an ongoing discussion, and remove the tag once it's resolved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This RFC isn't preceding the edit, the edit is already in the article and the proposer is asking whether it should stay. I didn't suggest we should have an RFC on whether to apply tags, I asked whether this RFC addresses the issues you raised by your tag and if it does not then why are we having this RFC?Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Nableezy, I suggest you remove a significant portion of your vote, namely the two block quotes, to the discussion section and keep your vote summary to one-to-two sentences, so that both threads are easier to follow and your points can conveniently be responded to.

Let's not cherrypick sources to affirm a single interpretation. The NYT, CRS, Human Rights Watch, and others have not unequivocally stated that Israel violated the ceasefire. Here is yet another NYT source indicating that the US held Hamas responsible for the ceasefire. The sources above report that the raid targeted fighters building a tunnel, after which rocket attacks against Israel from Gaza resumed. There are clearly multiple views on this subject. This is not a "world is flat" proposal, which suggests acknowledgement only of a certain set of viewpoints as valid (violating WP:NPOV. If a source is appropriate and reliable enough for inclusion, the viewpoints expressed within those sources must be noted per WP:DUE. The IDF is not the source for these statements, though IDF statements may be included with attribution (and ideally a citation to a secondary source).

This is not about whether the IDF is "reliable" or "not reliable." The sources provided above offering secondary analysis are reliable. If anything, the Hamas claims (Hamas = a recognized terrorist organization) that the tunnels were not being used for offensive purposes are WP:EXTRAORDINARY and require special scrutiny, i.e. multiple high-quality sources affirming as much. However, since we have interpretations on both sides, the better response is to document all prominently noted viewpoints and supply attribution, not state one particular set of interpretations as fact. WP:V. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Point of clarification: Let me try to summarize a few major misconceptions in a few of the oppose votes.

1) The New York Times, Amnesty International, the CRS, and others are reliable sources. Suggesting that use of these sources and their interpretations either creates a WP:FALSEBALANCE or introduces a "world is flat" type view is mistaken. See WP:DUE, WP:RSP. 2) The proposal is to supply attribution for all views published in reliable sources. One view does not "trump" another if both are published in reliable sources. 3) Editors are reminded not to make accusations against others regarding what their personal views may or may not be. Arguments made in good faith with reference to reliable sources deserved to be responded to in-kind. This has nothing to do with personal opinions; this is about presenting all reliable sources, with a diversity of mediums, in the article and using the most neutral wording possible. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No. And none of those reliable sources say Israel did not break the ceasefire. None of them say that Hamas broke the ceasefire. One of them says Israel says their raid was not a violation. It does not say that it in fact was not. And please do not repeat the WP:BLUDGEONing tactic as seen elsewhere. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Each of these sources notably and clearly avoids accusing Israel of breaking the ceasefire, instead characterizing both sides' actions as responsible for the breakdown. Big difference. And here is yet another reliable source (book published in Georgetown UP) further intentionally avoiding such a characterization:

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Israel and Hamas accused each other of violating the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire. As a matter of fact, rockets from Gaza never completely stopped during the truce, and Israel never allowed a major flow of goods and aid into Gaza. According to Hamas, it was Israel's raid into the Gaza Strip and the killing of six Hamas fighters on November 4, 2008, that broke the cease-fire. Israel claimed that its action was a legitimate step to destroy an immediate threat - namely, a tunnel on the Gaza-Israel border dug by militants to infiltrate into Israel and abduct soldiers.

Again, this is a reliable source published in Georgetown University Press, not the Flat Earth Society. To assert that we should ignore these reliably sourced interpretations in favor of scholars that articulate a different position is to violate WP:NPOV. And don't make accusations of bludgeoning, which is incredibly ironic given the amount of combative and lengthy posts you've made here.

Better yet, just format your vote properly like everyone else and place the paragraph-long block quotes in the discussion section, and keep your vote short and concise. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that source does not say that Israel or Hamas broke the ceasefire. It likewise does not say that they did not break the ceasefire. That is, it does not dispute what the other sources say as a fact. Kindly stop badgering me. And yes, bludgeoning. I count 13 or 14 of your signatures in the rfc and discussion section. This will be my third, two at your pings. Please stop. nableezy - 19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requiring the source "dispute" a POV is a strawman fallacy not relevant to WP:V or the RfC. -- GreenC 20:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A strawman fallacy? What does WP:V have to do with any of this? I have brought several reliable sources that flat out say the attack in November violated the ceasefire. Your response to that is to bring sources that dont say that it did not violate the ceasefire but argue that this means we cannot say that it did? And you are going to talk about WP:V? It is a verifiable fact that the Israeli raid violated the ceasefire. I have brought several reliable sources that verify that fact. Are there are any sources that actually dispute that fact? Any at all? If you want to talk about verifiability be my guest lol, but that likewise does not make your argument stronger. nableezy - 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This is very straightforward. An interpretation shared by several scholars does not make that interpretation fact. The reliable sources above do not confirm the same view. When some sources reach a conclusion and others are more circumspect, then the former is not a universal view, and both must be represented in the article. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. Any mention of the Israeli raid of the tunnels being characterized as a formal violation of the ceasefire requires attribution. Adding another block quote does nothing to dispute this basic point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

In cite #91 (Coresdman) "The 'Gaza War': A Strategic Analysis" published by Center for Strategic and International Studies, pg 9. it says "The immediate trigger of the war was an Israeli raid". Then on page 10: "Hamas must bear responsibility for the key strategic and grand strategic mistakes that initiated the conflict." -- it is nuanced view that blames both sides for initiating the conflict. It blames Israel tactically and Hamas strategically. Once you have that context, the raid of November 8 becomes less significant, an inevitable "trigger" for the gun Hamas loaded - this POV is not represented in the article. Finally, this source does not claim Israel violated the cease fire. It confirms Hamas claimed they did ("The [Hamas] statement claimed Israel had not honored the terms of the ceasefire"), but does not go so far as blaming Israel. They use the same NPOV language we do at Wikipedia, attributing an opinion without stating it as factually true. -- GreenC 02:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You lest out the first part of the sentence, "at least in this sense..." which refers to the respect line about how it underestimated isrtale willingness to respond. So no I do not think it apportions blame equally.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is solely about the question RfC Question: Should this edit stay? (an edit that no-one has reverted or even attempted to change) and not about anything else whatsoever. Changing the RFC title after there have been responses based on the previous title does not alter this fact in any way.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

In view of the obvious deficiencies in this RFC, I have established a new one that I believe addresses the principal issue directly and neutrally as well as attempting at the same time to deal with the article wide tag that has been applied (while noting that a sufficient explanation as to what the problem is or what is expected to be done about it has still not been supplied as required). There is no difficulty in both of these RFC's running simultaneously as they cover two entirely separate issues.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of which way the RFC winds up going (I have not reviewed enough RS to take a strong stance either way), per its WP:RSP entry Mondoweiss (Currently used as the source for the sentence where the first change in the edit takes place) should not be used unattributed for statements of fact, especially contentious ones. I don't see an RSP entry about it, but the same probably goes for CAMERA (the source used in the sentence where the second change from the edit takes place, although the pre-change wording does not seem to appear in the source). Any statements that are sourced to these publications should be attributed, not stated in Wikipedia's voice. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that early on it was a flag the article has deeper problems. There are probably better sources that could be used in this case, however the RfC turns out. -- GreenC 13:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Breakdown of the Ceasefire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question : Did the IDF 4 November cross border raid lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire?Selfstudier (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Scholarly sources and a UN report support this:

  Baconi, Tareq (2018). Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and Islamic Societies and Cultures. Stanford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-5036-0581-7. As domestic Palestinian talks faltered in late 2008, so did the ceasefire agreement with Israel. On November 4, in a dramatic escalation, Israel broke the ceasefire by raiding the Gaza Strip, citing preemptive self-defense against an attack tunnel that Hamas was allegedly building to capture Israeli soldiers. Hamas denied these accusations, noting that its tunnels were being built for defensive or economic purposes. It responded with a barrage of rockets over the border. This skirmish, although brief, demonstrated Israel's desire to end the ceasefire, as Hamas had anticipated. For its part, the movement sought the opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the agreement. Israel had not only failed to sufficiently relax the blockade, a key condition of the truce, but had evidently continued incursions into Gaza. This was even though Hamas had been remarkably effective, as Israeli security officials openly admitted, in enforcing the truce from the Gaza front.

  Poynting, S.; Whyte, D. (2012). Counter-Terrorism and State Political Violence: The 'war on Terror' as Terror. Critical terrorism studies. Taylor & Francis. p. 119-120. ISBN 978-0-415-60720-9. it was actually broken by Israel on 4 November 2008, when Israel launched a raid into Gaza resulting in the deaths of six Hamas members. Prior to this, Hamas had scrupulously adhered to the ceasefire - not firing rockets themselves, and reining in other Palestinian Groups. Hamas's adherence to the ceasefire was admitted by official Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev and the finer points were discussed in detail by the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC), an organisation with close links to the Israeli administration. A December 2008 report states that the small number of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza during the ceasefire were fired 'by rogue terrorist organizations, and in some instance in defiance of Hamas'

The 2009 Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict noted that ",the ceasefire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip,"Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (PDF) (Report). UN. September 25, 2009. p. 68. Retrieved March 24, 2020. After two months in which few incidents were reported, the ceasefire began to founder on 4 November 2008 following an incursion by Israeli soldiers into the Gaza Strip, which Israel stated was to close a cross-border tunnel that in Israel's view was intended to be used by Palestinian fighters to kidnap Israeli soldiers. {{cite report}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your RfC has problems: 1) sign it immediately after the question. 2) there are no section breaks for Polling and Discussion. -- GreenC 15:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I signed it. We can manage without the breaks, people often ignore them.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• 'No For the purposes of this article, the sources are more nuanced than a simple black and white question. The UN report was later retraced by the lead author for example, it is too controversial for Wikipedia to assert in its own voice that this is an objective fact, -- GreenC 15:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Um, nothing was retraced (sic). Hey look it's still there. nableezy - 16:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict discusses Goldstone's retraction of his prior agreement with his previously agreed to statements concerning the intentional targeting of civilians by Israel, none of which had anything to do the ceasefire breakdown so that is simply misleading as well as irrelevant.Selfstudier (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Goldstone was lead author and says "The purpose of these investigations is to ensure accountable for improper actions" of which breaking a cease fire is one, as originally detailed in the report. Goldstone's recusal from the report, in the Washington Post, gives the killing of civilians as an "example" (he says "example"), but is speaking of the report broadly. He confirms "If I had known then what I known now it would be a different document", and "there are 400 allegations of misconduct". He says the UN Human Rights Council's bias against Israel "cannot be doubted". He says the report should not "second-guess commanders making difficult battle-field decisions" with "the benefit of hindsight". Given all of this, there is more nuance than a "Israel perp / Hamas victim" which is conformed in the CSIS document linked above and other documents. -- GreenC 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

For your edification What Exactly Did Goldstone 'Retract' From His Report on Gaza?Selfstudier (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The RfC seeks truth of what happened. According to WP:V we verify if sources claim something is true, and report what those sources say. We do not decide on our own if something is true. We have mechanisms for dealing with multiple points of view about the truth, and they should be used as described in WP:NPOV. -- GreenC 19:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I have given my opinion and several sources on which it is based (there are many more if needed), feel free to provide your own for the view that Israel 4 November action did not lead to the breakdown in the ceasefire. At the moment, you have given your opinion without any sources in support of it and confined yourself instead to an attempt to discredit an official UN report (at best you may try to discredit one of the authors but it won't change the report). At the end, we will assess the weight of sources and form a conclusion as to whether or not the article in its current form fairly represents those sources. Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper RfC Selfstudier, who characterized a prior RfC as "undue," has opened an RfC asking about the WP:TRUTH of a matter. This is not an appropriate question and will have no bearing on article content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

False. Read the comment immediately preceding yours "At the end, we will assess the weight of sources and form a conclusion as to whether or not the article in its current form fairly represents those sources." and it is for the closer to decide if it has any bearing. And I join with Nableezy in a request to kindly stop pinging me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Quote:

"Nevertheless, each party felt as though the other was violating the terms of the unwritten cease-fire. Hamas demanded—unsuccessfully—that Israel lift its economic blockade of Gaza, while Israel demanded—also unsuccessfully—a full end to rocket fire and progress on the release of Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit from Hamas’s captivity... Many believe that, all along, both sides considered the six-month cease-fire to be merely an opportunity to prepare more fully for eventual conflict."[5] (Congressional Research Service, page 10)

To be perfectly frank, the RfCs overly simplistic view of this conflict with one side the perp and other side a victim, is nothing but naive and ill-informed. The CSR document clearly summarizes both sides were at fault in this conflict, trying to pin the blame on one is biased and doomed to failure once we get more neutral editors to look into this. -- GreenC 15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Can't see any mention of November 4 there, try again.Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

No? OK, I'll help you..from the same report on page 6 "Violence had already resumed in the waning days of the cease-fire. After an Israeli raid on November 4 (ostensibly aimed at preventing Hamas’s use of tunnels to abduct Israeli soldiers), rocket fire on Israel resumed with greater intensity from Gaza." No-one believed the abduction theory and it was quickly abandoned in favor of an arms smuggling theory instead, slightly more believable while still being conjecture.Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditors attempted POV editing and subsequent tagging relate to the ceasefire and what happened during it and in particular his not feeling comfortable with Hamas being portrayed as observing the ceasefire, not the conflict in toto, and that is why we are here now. This has been gone over multiple times over the years and if there is anything new to add, I can tell you that time has not worked in Israel's favor.Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, each party felt. We report that. It does not mean that we do not also report what reliable third party academic sources report, namely that the ceasefire fell apart after Israel violated it. The source you are quoting supports that Israel claimed that Hamas violated the ceasefire, not that Hamas actually did. The sources we have brought, which you for some reason ignore, say that Israel did in fact violate the ceasefire, not that Hamas simply felt that way. nableezy - 15:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your sources, they exist and say what you say. In fact you are the one ignoring sources that show a different POV that both sides were at fault. Also you said "we report what sources say" is a completely different proposition from "we assert what the truth is". This RfC is proposing the later not the former. -- GreenC 15:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying that sources are being ignored, where are they? Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Might as well have another Author Avi Shlaim writes in 2015 "...ceasefire had a dramatic effect in de-escalating the conflict.....It was Israel that violated the ceasefire. On 4 November, 2008 the (IDF) launched a raid into Gaza and killed 6 Hamas fighters. That was the end of the ceasefire. If all that Israel really wanted was to protect its citizens in the South then all it had to do was follow the good example set by Hamas in respecting the ceasefire."Shlaim, Avi (2015). "From The Historical Archive: Israel and the arrogance of power". Irish Pages. 9 (2): 133–80. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) The RFC is not asserting anything, it is merely a vehicle for sources like this one.Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

"At Hamas’ end, the ceasefire worked relatively well until November 2008, with a steady decrease in rocket attacks, seemingly mostly launched in defiance of Hamas yet Israel’s closure of the Strip persisted with no relaxation on the ban on trade" (p33) "On 4-5 November 2008 the situation precipitated when Israel carried out an incursion, allegedly in order to destroy a tunnel under construction, which killed six Hamas militants. Hamas resumed rocket attacks, including launching longer range missiles which reached Ashkelon and Netivot creating additional Israeli public pressure on the government to take action. By 5 November Gaza’s borders were almost entirely sealed as Israel allowed a mere 6 truckloads per day to enter the Strip. In a situation in which over 80% of the 1.5 million people are dependent on food aid,93 the effect was devastating. In addition, the only power plant in the Gaza Strip was shut down in November due to the lack of fuel entering the Gaza Strip, leaving 250,000 Gazans without electricity and with running water once every 5-7 days. The siege was also extended to building materials and cash, forcing banks to close by early December 2008 and to a suspension of all cash-for-work programmes. EU assistance through cash programmes and fuel payments thus also ground to a halt. The EU objected to Israel’s closure policy, recognizing it as an illegal act of collective punishment."(p34)Active but Acquiescent: The EU’s Response to the Israeli Military Offensive in the Gaza Strip (PDF) (Report). Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. May 2009. pp. 33–34. Retrieved March 24, 2020.

Yes, sources like that exist. In addition, there are sources that say "Many believe that, all along, both sides considered the six-month cease-fire to be merely an opportunity to prepare more fully for eventual conflict". According to this opinion both sides were preparing for conflict it was all a pretext for war, and in addition, according to the previous source I posted, Hamas also holds some blame for that. You don't have to agree with these opinions, only recognize the opinions exist. -- GreenC 16:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

All well and good, if that's what we were discussing. You can discuss the conflict in toto as long as you want, the RFC is about Hamas observance of the ceasefire up to 4 November 2008 and what happened then, the problem initially raised by Wikieditor and leading to both your RFC and this one.Selfstudier (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment In faculty scholarship, lead author and law professor George Bisharat {{George Bisharat, Timothy Crawley, Sar Elturk, Carey James, Rose Mishaan, Akila Radhakrishnan, and Anna Sanders, Israel's Invasion of Gaza in International Law, 38 Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 41 (2009). url=http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1002 p.61 "Israel's November 4 Raids"}} writes "But these attacks followed Israeli operations which killed six Palestinians in Gaza on November 4. Before Israel's violation of the ceasefire in these raids, rocket attacks from Gaza had stopped almost entirely, totaling only one a month in July,September, and October and eight in the month of August. It was not until after the November 4 raids that rocket attacks from Gaza began increasing in number, and indeed the Washington Post reported on November 5 that Hamas' assertion of responsibility for the attacks in response to the Israeli operations was the "first such announcement by the group since the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire went into effect June 19." and goes on to cite the outcome of a study by MIT professor Nancy Kanwisher that only analyzed the 4 November case but "the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians by Israelis, and killings of Israelis by Palestinians, in the Second Intifada, based on the data from the widely-respected Israeli Human Rights group B’Tselem (including all the data from September 2000 to October 2008)" finding that "this pattern — in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause — becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days." concluding that "The latest ceasefire ended [on 4 November] when Israel first killed Palestinians, and Palestinians then fired rockets into Israel"Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Jerome Slater International Security 37:2 Just War Moral Philosophy and the 2008–09 Israeli Campaign in Gaza

"Hamas continued to crack down on the Islamic Jihad attacks: "Hamas leaders have spoken out vehemently and unequivocally against the rocket fire,” wrote Alexander Yakobson, "[and] have even threatened those who violate the lull with arrest." In December 2008, a New York Times reporter concluded that Hamas had "imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets," in a "largely successful" effort to halt all attacks. Nonetheless, on November 4, Israel broke the ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza, attacking a tunnel and killing 6 members of Hamas. Hamas retaliated on November 14, firing rockets into southern Israel and announcing that it would not abide by the latest ceasefire agreement when it expired in December but would be prepared to negotiate a new agreement if Israel agreed to stop its attacks and ease its siege.Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is an absurd degree of bludgeoning and disruptive behavior. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

In the final analysis, this is simply a question of relative weight in sources. Although I am presently refraining from adding sourced material to the section subject of this RFC I will of course be free to add it once it ends (I also have no objection to its being attributed, in fact that would be better). In the meantime you might give consideration to the request made of you several times now that you explain precisely what the nature of your objections are and what you expect to be done about them. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem paragraph #1

The paragraph that starts "A number of unilateral commentaries or demands.." is a mess. What is this paragraph about? It starts out concerning unilateral statements over the truce terms at the start of it, then jumps in time into a first person account by a non-notable person at the end of it - why is this lengthy quote in the article, who is the person, why at this spot? Then it becomes someone's opinion about who was responsible for breaking the ceasefire (itself a significant topic of discussion elsewhere but tacked onto the end of the paragraph here for unknown reasons). Then the sub-section following, called "Implementation", again repeats the same sort of information about breaking the cease fire. The section following that, again, repeating the same information. The paragraph in question should focus at the time the cease fire started. We write chronologically. It was originally done chronologically. The article has deteriorated as editors taking a battleground approach insert their POVS in places where it might say things they don't like, to try and balance or push a certain narrative. This is the first paragraph I analyzed for NPOV and other problems. -- GreenC 21:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I will take a crack at this one. You raise a valid issue, and even skimming the article I noticed how extensive the problems were. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

open rfcs?

Uh there is no open rfc on this page. Anybody see any rfc tags? Anybody notice that the rfc that had been held 2 whole ass months ago was about an edit that remains in the article? Anybody? nableezy - 18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Then an RFC labeled "RfC: Description of the 2008 November ceasefire breakdown" above which is still open, You can ask an administrator to close it. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not "still open", there is no rfc tag, rfcs run for a month and that was almost 2 months ago now, and an admin does not need to close an rfc, and besides that, you are placing a NPOV dispute tag over an edit you agree with that is still in the article? You serious lol? nableezy - 18:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)