Talk:International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg supports Israel

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

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

Split between official country reactions and popular reactions

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

Yes, that's a good idea, but were there demonstrations supporting Israel? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know of some in NYC. PluniAlmoni (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Western Wall: Hundreds pray for soldiers' wellbeing and the residents of Israel's southern communities. Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Blames section

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

Its ridiculous. It seems like a competition and is not very encyclopedic. I'll remove them now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Civilian Demonstrations and Protests to separate article

I suggest moving that section to a separate article.

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

There are many photos too. See

commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict protests

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

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

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

http://flickr.com/search/advanced

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

- Find content to use commercially

- Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon

Then upload the images that are acceptable to the Commons,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload

and categorize them under

commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict or its subcategories.

Search for free images from multiple sources:

http://search.creativecommons.org

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

Vatican / Holy See

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

It was my understanding that the Vatican City is recognized as a nation state while the Holy See is not. I assume that it would be the nation state which does the diplomacy. I am not an expert on this so I may well be wrong. --Tocino 22:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From Vatican City: "Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law, but it is the Holy See that conducts diplomatic relations on its behalf, in addition to the Holy See's own diplomacy, entering into international agreements in its regard.", "Given the distinction between the two entities, the Holy See's immense influence on world affairs is quite unrelated to the minuscule size of the Vatican City State." See also Holy See#Relationship with the Vatican City and other territories: "The Holy See, not the Vatican City, maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations." --JensMueller (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A Picture from Tehran

Amirreza, please be kind enough to tell us who Abi Abdellah Al-Husayn is. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He is The third Imam of Shia. Battle of Karbala is January 7 (Tehran Time) which is coincided to these days Gaza Air strikes. Amirreza ^talk 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

President of the United Nations General Assembly

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

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

Unsourced claims in 'Violence' section

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

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

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

Does this count

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

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

Sakhnin demonstration

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

"Up to 10,000" The Guardian
"Over 10,000" Turkish Weekly
"Over 10,000" Jpost
"Tens of thousands" BBC
"Tens of thousands" ynet
"Tens of thousands" AFP
"At least 100,000" Palestine News Network
"Up to 150,000" Al-Jazeera

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

Well, we have to go by the sources. None of the sources say 30,000. We could write over 10,000 to 150,000. Also, remember, that the demonstration could have drawn thousands of other Arabs from cities, towns, and villages in the Galilee and Triangle, as it had many MKs from different Arab parties participating. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Every source, technically, agrees with the 150,000 figure, except guardian. "Over 10,000" includes "150,000" so there is no disagreement there. Also, no source quotes 30,000, so we shouldn't quote that figure either.VR _talk 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Over 10,000 also includes 1m! The fact is that "dubious" (cringe!) sources quotes 100,000 and over. I totally agree with Al Ameer son that others probably gathered in the town. However, if the 150,000 figure is to be used, I would like more RS's. 30,000 was a compromise. At present I am not sure how to proceed. We have to remember that some sources do tend to inflate these figures. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, is we could start attributing the numbers to the sources, or use the "Over 10,000 to 150,000" format, or simply state "tens of thousands". Also remember (and its unfortunate the BBC, AFP, and YNET were not specific), tens of thousands could be 150,000. Also, I believe, it was noted as the biggest (or one of the biggest) demonstration in Arab Israel's history. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Chesdovi, I wish we had more RS's as well. But unfortunately we don't. So thus we should quote the only figure available to us *by a reliable source*. And Al-Jazeera is a reliable source.VR _talk 06:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, is it the "only" figure? How selective of you to choose the most inflated one!

Personally, I would agree to go with 50,000~, with mention of the other estimates too. Chesdovi (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one stated "50,000" so its automatically OR. Again, "Over 10,000 to 150,000" or "Tens of thousands" should be used. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that 50,000, or any number other than 150,000 is original research (unless there are some sources I don't know of). Chesdovi, you are imagining a dispute. The JP and other sources don't disagree at all with Al-Jazeera. Finally, we know that many people don't like Al-Jazeera, there are similar complaints by Israelis about BBC as well. Do we now dismiss both these sources as unreliable?VR _talk 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They complain of BBC bias, not that their facts are exaggerated or inaccurate. It strikes me as strange that sources would report as "over 10,000" when in fact there was over 100,000. The difference is far too large. OR? Any figure "over 10,000" is okay to mention! Chesdovi (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was 50,000, maybe 90,000, maybe 120,000, or 150,000, but unless the source explicitly states the number, its inclusion would be deemed original research. For the third time, "Over 10,000 to 150,000" or "Tens of thousands" should be used. No one has said yea or nay on these suggestions. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Al Ameer son! I am still chewing it over! Meanwhile another figure may be revealled. I want to know what the police estimate was. Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute - Official Reaction of Australia

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

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

Please list your comments below:

Exclude because they are comments from individual politicians that were not part of the "official reaction" of that country. shirulashem (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Include because the politician is an elected representative. He holds office (from which I believe derives the term official). He is a Senator of Australia.VR _talk 06:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Exclude. We can't have a list of everybodys reaction. This section deals with the country's official ruling party's response. Anything else will snowball into hundreds of individual responses, however importatnt they may be. What does the Queen think about it? Hey, where am I mentioned! (For this reason I think we must add Israel's offical response and not just what Olmert had to say about it). Chesdovi (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Chesdovi you didn't read my arguments. I was talking about leaders holding office. You are not such. And yes, if the Queen of UK had a reaction we' include it just as we include Peres' reaction in his capacity as the head of state of Israel.VR _talk 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) We just cannot list the opinion of every leader in public office. Maybe exceptions can be made for invovled parties. But as a rule, let's stick to offical government releases. Chesdovi (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Exclude - only official reactions. Otherwise we can feel the page with nazi organisations reactions.--Avala (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC) But Nazis are never elected leaders.VR _talk 15:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Irrelevant. They might well be de facto (and accordingly, under international law, de jure) Heads of state/goverment ... --JensMueller (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Well that is the point. That is why include only the official leaders (not only elected but all recognised leaders like monarchs and other leaders).--Avala (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Exclude. It is not only not official, but furthermore not a majority opinion in that country (we might discuss again about a resolution by a parlament or the parlamentary assembly of an international ~~assembly~~organisation that is rejected by the executive branch (which is usually charged with foreign relations). --JensMueller (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Resolution Based upon the consensus thus far, I think the removal of the statement should stand. If someone wishes to reinsert the comments, a request for mediation will be initiated. Thank you all for your opinions on this matter. shirulashem (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yeah, sorry Anon, nothing sinister... just over looked. If you want, register with an account, do 10 edits in some other article, wait a few days, and then you add them yourself!--Cerejota (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tabular format trivializes the responses

The tabular format:

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

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

Don't WP:Soapbox, NonZionist. You do this all the time. No one is amused. Jeztah (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

One sentence reactions are next to useless -- it's like a beauty pageant where every contestant says she is for "world peace". Is this what people come to wikipedia to read? What is the NATURE of the criticism? What exactly is criticized and what is not? Is the criticism constructive? All of this information is being excluded, by the constraining format. Where, in wikipedia, can we report the response of affected or involved countries in more depth, if not here?! It's not a matter of being pro or anti-Israel: It's a matter of making information and insight available to the readers. NonZionist (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

International Committee of the Red Cross

Why has the ICRC entry been moved to "international organisations"? The ICRC is not an international organisation IMO, it is just recognised as a subject of international law. Otherwise, it is a private association under Swiss law. Cf. ICRC#Legal status. --JensMueller (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is currently part of the heading "Non-governmental organisations". Is there a better category where this would fit in your opinion? (I moved it there, because I saw Amnesty there, and thought maybe these both are similar types of organizations).VR _talk 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had created the "Other sovereign entities" section for the Holy See (whose statements were previously attributed to the Vatican city state), and _then_ added the ICRC there so that the Holy See would not be that alone. Unfortunately, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has not issued a statement. --JensMueller (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that the ICRC should be moved from NGO to "sovereign entity"? I really don't have a comment, because I don't think I know enough about this technicality.VR _talk 22:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to put it in either of those two categories. You have no objection on my part.VR _talk 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Are the reactions of the involved parties really "international reactions"? Apart from that, the reaction of a (one) Knesset member (call for war crime prosecution) surely isn't ... --JensMueller (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

link to Russian reaction

Can somebody explain, why we use links on Turkish newspaper (103) and on Reuters (104) to describe statement of Russian Federation?!!!

Statement by Russian MFA ... in Relation to the Israeli Airstrikes on the Gaza Strip

2128-27-12-2008

Israeli aircraft dealt numerous strikes at various targets in the Gaza Strip on the morning of December 27. According to incoming reports, the number of killed Palestinians is already about 120, with more than 200 injured.

Moscow considers it necessary to immediately stop the large-scale military actions against the Gaza Strip that have already led to significant casualties and suffering among the Palestinian civilian population. At the same time we call on the Hamas leadership to end rocket attacks on Israeli territory. We are convinced that the most urgent thing now is to stop the armed confrontation, restore the lull and release civilians on both sides from horror and pain.

Russia will in different formats continue its persistent efforts to break the vicious circle of violence as an indispensable condition for solving the existing problems by negotiation.

December 27, 2008

http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/698fe8c87c2b17afc325752e00479df2?OpenDocument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.66.1 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Warwick

I'm going to remove the Warwick uni demo which "failed to materialize" from the table of anti-Israeli demos, because, well, it failed to materialize, and I don't think it's NPOV to use that fact to make some kind of rhetorical point.--Chikamatsu (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It shows that one was planned and only the police turned up. I thought it was rather interesting. Chesdovi (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that we do not do original research. This situation will happen time and time again, and it is not notable to list every called for but not materialized demo. Justt because something is vaguely related to the topic of this article does it mean we have to add it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Accepted, oh enlightened one! Chesdovi (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Revenge threats against non-Israelis

Death threats are made against Alan Sugar and other high profile Jews as well as "Jewish children anywhere in the world." Chesdovi (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.255.98 (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

International demos - how about a date column?

Are there any objections to adding a date column? Preferably requesting people to put standard ISO format dates YYYY-MM-DD e.g. today is 2009-01-07 or 2009-01-06 depending on where you live? Boud (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. But what happens when there are more than one protest in the same city. Oslo has one entry with details of numerous protests. I can see there are two entries for Cairo because of this. It could get excessive. Should we just add all the protests together giving a total figure? That would make the date misleading. Also I get really confused with the American style. I prefer 07-01-2009. Chesdovi (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably it would be reasonable to suppose that in most protests in a city, people from the same city participate. Also, often the numbers between different dates are of a different order of magnitude, and it would probably be reasonable to assume that people in the small demo mostly also participate in the bigger demo. In any case, if we have e.g. one demo of 100 and another of 1000 another date, then the minimum is 1000 and the maximum 1100, in which the round number 1000 is not too far from either estimate. So, IMHO using the demo on the date with the largest number for that particular city seems reasonable to me, which is approximately the same as adding up the numbers if they are very different from one another. (Of course, it should be whatever is most consistent with the different sources for that date.) The smaller demos can be in the comment line. Notability also is in favour of noting the largest demo most prominently.

If there are many demos each of e.g. "thousands", probably we would have to check the sources. If one day is the Blue Party demo of 5000 and another day is the Pink Party demo of 4000, and if the sources are convinced that they are mostly different people, probably we could add them together to make 9000, though i would be conservative about this. If the blue and pink supporters want to make a political point, then IMHO it's up to them to unite in a single demo if they want the electoral weight supporting their common POV to become part of "knowledge". i think probably it would be better to avoid adding them up unless there was a reasonable claim in the sources that they are essentially two different groups of people. Boud (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See ISO 8601 for the ISO 8601 international standard date style. This is not a USAmerican style, which probably would be 01/07/2009, which i agree is confusing. Somewhere on meta pages regarding referencing style, i think you may find that ISO 8601 dates are preferred. The reason is probably for software sorting of dates, and analogous to the reason why this year is written 2009 rather than 9002 :). Boud (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind a date column but don't think it matters much as the dates will all be relatively close together and all entries are (or should be) referenced, where the date becomes apparent.--Theosch (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flags

currently, israeli flags are displayed for settlements in the occupied westbank, definitely outside the green line (my edit was reverted). what are the wikipedia guidelines here? --Severino (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And the country is stated as "Israel", where it should be something else, like "Palestinian territories" or "Israeli-controlled area of the Palestinian territories". --JensMueller (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The settlements are under Israeli control. I really don't see what the fuss is about. This is not about the status of the locations in which protests took place in. If you are so bothered about accuracy, please re-add all the ~ signs which were removed, Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map of international reactions by States (File:International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.png) is completely incorrect. It fails to reflect calls for "immediate cease-fire" by the USA, distorts the statements of France, does not take into account the joint cease-fire proposal by France and Egypt, and similarly misrepresents the statements made by at the very least Germany, Norway, Australia, Sweden, Finland, Canada and Mexico.

Colouring a map of the world is in itself a very gross way to caracterise international diplomatic stances, and is of questionable opportunity with such a lack of distance, but when it is done in such a way, it becomes utterly misleading and wrong. Rama (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada gave aid

[1] please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.15.203 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK.--Avala (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

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

If you refer to the Attacks against Israeli and Jewish interests section, all but one have been directly blamed on the Gaza situation. I was careful to reference each one before they were listed. If you are so bothered, check first and then discuss. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this should be incorporated into the main protests section. Recently, Israel killed a Palestinian protesting by stone-throwing. However, I don't it would be appropriate to call it "Killings of protesters". I'm going to incorporate this into the section outlining protests.VR _talk 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These actions are indeed protests, however they differ in that they are not organised demonstrations. Rather they are individual attacks, specifically targeted against uninvolved civilians. Included are Israeli persons, although we must differenciate between demonstrators who gather at Isralei embassies and consultes which are listed in the main table. I will add the Qalqilya incident you mention in the main table as the protest was directed against an involved party, namely the Israeli military. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For now I have moved the Qalqilya event to the section which i renamed as violence. I don't agree with your argument.

"specifically targeted against uninvolved civilians" Civilians are always uninvolved, and attacks against them are always wrong.

"although we must differenciate between demonstrators who gather at Isralei embassies and consultes" Why? Such attacks are also wrong, and in any case would count as "Israeli interests".

I don't see any reason to distinguish events that were "organised" versus those that were poorly so. Finally, given the limited number of events, I think its best to put it in prose form as opposed to a table, so that we can explain the nature of the attack.VR _talk 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your response to me, but then again, I may have not made myself too clear in the first place! I think it is correct to have separate lists for organised demonstrations against Israel and those protests which have been directed against uninvolved civilians. Violence which evolved at any protests against Israel is listed in in small. It is important that acts purportrated against innocents be listed separately. I will not wait for your reply, as you did not see fit to wait for mine before you made your changes. Best, Chesdovi (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All violence in the scope of this article, whether against embassies, or is against "innocents". Secondly, how does one define "uninvolved"? Finally why is that criterion necessary?VR _talk 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I *strongly* disagree with focusing on violence against Israelis/Jews but not on violence against Arabs. That's exactly what you did, when you removed the incident in which a Palestinian was shot dead in Qalqilya from the violence section and re-named it.VR _talk 00:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

When the violence is directed against police or by police against civilains, that is one thing. This goes hand in hand with the main protests. The difference is when civilians attack other civilans. Violence against Arabs would be noted in a separate table if pro-Israel activists target Arab or Muslim civilians in response to Hamas rocket attacks. Chesdovi (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is but a technicality. I really don't understand why you're trying to down-play the death of a Palestinian man by using such arguments (that he was killed by Israeli soldiers not civilians). I'm including his death in the section.VR _talk 06:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. In the section, you are including act where some people said "Jews out", but are excluding an incident where a man is killed?VR _talk 06:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

No Chesdovi, it is obvious from your edits that the point is only to highlight violence against Jews, but remove it when it comes to Arabs. A stone-throwing civilian is "armed"? Are you also going to tell me that the Londoners who threw shoes were also "armed"? What about those who throw tomatoes?

"Such attacks are just not justified." So you are saying that it is ok to kill Palestinians just because they throw stones?

"any preventitve measures" are not understandable. Rubber bullets are understandable, tear gas is understandable. Beating protesters with baton is also understandable. But killing them, by opening gunfire is not.

I urge you to stop differentiating between Palestinian deaths and Israeli ones, I don't understand why you would not accept violence against Arabs/Palestinians as similar to violence against Jews/Israelis.VR _talk 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vice regent - you are troubled. Seek help. Chesdovi (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is that a personal attack?VR _talk 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Shall we add it to the violence box? Chesdovi (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, may I ask you to stop making personal attacks? The discussion is far more constructive when you don't.

Please respond to my points earlier, that we should focus equally in violence against Palestinians as we do against Israelis. (Noting that some of the "attacks" against Jews constitute entirely of people yelling "Jews out").VR _talk 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points, VR! I was upset when you "scaled down" my "Reaction" section in the main article, but I see from your comments above that you are fair-minded. I retract my accusations. Yes, Palestinians are always "armed" with something -- if not stones, then fists or ball-point pens -- so there is always a good convenient excuse for killing them. This is the main reason why I argue that the distinction between "civilian" and "combatant" is neither helpful nor tenable. The hairsplitting and spinning over the "civilian" issue is used mainly to deflect attention away from a far more relevant distinction, that between aggressor and victim. Cheers! NonZionist (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed to read that VR thinks that throwing stones is a harmless (ie "unarmed") activity. Perhaps he mistakenly thinks only Israeli soldiers and not innocent civilians [2][3] are the victims of stoning? Or perhaps he believes that Palestinians are never killed by stone throwers? [4][5]. Stone throwing is a violent action, which can and does kill people. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested split of protests: major and minor

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

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

I do not understand why we would need to do a split. Chesdovi (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just arrange the protests in order of numbers attended?VR _talk 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way of doing that automatically? Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a button at the top of the table which can be clicked on to order the table by that column. i think this requires enabling turning on javascript, e.g. with the "noscript" firefox/iceweasel plugin you can choose to allow scripts from en.wikipedia.org temporarily or permanently. People who live dangerously by having no script protection won't notice the difference. i agree that putting estimated attendance makes more sense than trying to divide "minor" from "major" protests. Boud (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A half-dozen folks met in front of my local library in protest and with signs. My town is very small, 10,000. Can I add it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a source that mentions it?--Chikamatsu (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with VR. Best to set the table to default to order demos by the column that shows numbers in attendance, in descending order.--Chikamatsu (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Violence section - please do not revert without consensus

The violence section is for all episodes of violence surrounding civilian protests. It is biased to have only a section for anti-israeli attacks. We must keep the article neutral and factual so to add balance I have added the Ramallah incident again.

Please do not revert this without discussion here first. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And I also remind users, that when discussing, to not make personal attacks.VR _talk 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like tearing my hair out. Why is this not yet clear? These cases should not be merged because the problem is that the anti-semitic attacks were not made to people who were involved in any protests. When there are isolated attacks against uninvovled Arabs or Muslims, then we can discuss. At present, there have to my knowledge, been no anti-Palestinian attacks. Chesdovi (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Chesdovi, because I have similar feelings to you. I see what you're saying, but I'm afraid you don't see what I'm saying. There are many ways of sectioning this. One way is how you define it. Another way is how it is currently. In your proposal we single out only the attacks on Israelis. In the current way, we focus on attacks against Israelis/Jews and Palestinians. The way I see it, the current status is more neutral.VR _talk 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no isolated attacks against Arabs or Muslims, as yet. (I know. I have attacked you once.) You are simply confusing two things which, for clarity's sake and common sense, must be kept separate. These two types of attacks can not be equated. They just cannot. You want to provide balance. Well, that doesn't mean you have to mix water and oil. I have already suggested that you make another section which will list violence which occured at protests. Agreed: Everything was originally one long list, but, I presume for clarity, the anti & pro-Israel demos were separated. This section also needs to be. It is misleading otherwise. What did these people do to deserve offensive daubings, stabbings and shootings? Don't bunch them together with the troublemakers! Chesdovi (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any fundamental law of the universe (a law probably exists that prevents water from mixing with oil) that would prevent us mixing these two "types" of attacks. Your "must" is based on your opinion. Others' opinions clearly differ.

If you want to get emotional, I can be too (e.g. "what did the Palestinian man do to be killed?" and don't tell me that throwing stones is punishable by death). Chesdovi I think there's other things that can be focused on, no?VR _talk 01:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note for Jandrews23jandrews23: You re-termed the section to Violence noting "Violence at civilian protests." You wrtie above that you want to note all "episodes of violence surrounding civilian protests". Well, the section you renamed does not refer to civilian protests at all. They are hate crimes, acts of individuals - not protestors, against others who they deem related to the conflict by dint of their religion or nationality. Adding the "Ramallah incident" here does not "add balance". It skews it. That incident occured in a violent standoff with authorities. I can not but help suspect that this is not about balance and neutrality! It is about pushing your POV. My evidence: You do not seem bothered to add the Paris disturbances, nor the Umm-el-Fahm incident or other occurances of violence at other protest locations, most notably the one at Mosul which even Al-Jazeera described as "weird". Their ommision is blantant. Indeed, when this section was first added you questioned its inclusion and were "not quite sure how to treat it". I still don't think you do. Chesdovi (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pretend to be adding a categorical list of all violent occurences. That is up to everyone. I was just making the list, imo, more neutral by making the section be for all violence. I understand that these did not always take place at protests but I'm not sure this makes any difference. After all for all you know there may be daily anti-Arab attacks in Israel that are not reported. If we listed every rascist incident in the world during this period the page would be the longest on wikipedia. As it is I think this list gives undue weight to some mindless graffiti in a couple of small English towns (two of which are so close that I'm not sure they should have seperate entries. PLus I'm not sure that sources like The JEwish Chronicle of Golders Green (or something similar) is an impartial source.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Request that the text in Ramallah should be sourced. And perhaps phrase it more neutral "Israeli troops shot dead a protester who was trying to concus and possibly kill them by fatally lobbing sharp stones." Now I'm not saying that's not true, just that all other notes have references but this one doesn't and it is written to really make sure it sounds like self-defence, that's just my feeling. — chan dler — 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think and possibly kill them by fatally lobbing sharp stones. sounds neutral. Here in Switzerland we sometimes have stone-throwing protestors. They certainly want to damage something (e.g. windows of banks or embassies) or even hurt somebody (e.g. police firing at them with rubber bullets which can seriously injure), but they certainly don't want to kill anybody. Now in Ramallah, maybe some protestors do in their heart want to kill their enemies, but they know that in practice you can't kill a well-protectzed soldier or policeman with a stone. Anyway, we don't know. Equally unaccepatable would be "Israeli troops shot dead a protester who was defending himself with stones" I would suggest the formulation "Israeli troops shot dead a protester who was throwing stones". --Theosch (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

daubings and graffiti are included in the violence section as well as incidents which not necessarily have any relation to the gaza offensive. thereby very questionable sources are used. but when israeli soldiers kill a human, it's "self defence"...--Severino (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that daubings and graffiti are definitely not violent acts - the title should be changed or the examples of vandalism should be removed from the list.Rayizmi (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

VR: You claim to provide balance: Why do you try to achieve this by adding just one incident? You are not really interested in expanding the list. So long as the token palestinain fatality is listed, you are content. Shame!

We could generalise and list all violent acts resulting from the conflict under one heading. But this is not the precedent on this page: Although both reactions, the official reactions of various countries have been separated from the reactions of their ordinary citizens. The reason for this is understandable.

There have also been violent reactions. Some violence has occurred at protests, the expected location for such acts. This is different from other violence which occurred away from the protests on unsuspecting persons.

Just like government and NGO reactions have been separated, so too these occurrences of violence should be separated. This clarifies the fundamental difference between those who are attacked in what are termed hate crimes and those who are attacked due to their own aggressive behaviour.

To conclude: While it is understandable to include the death of a Muslim shot by police while throwing stones during a protest in the “anti-Israel demonstrations” list, it is improper and misleading to add the stabbing of a Jew in his home to the “anti-Israel demonstrations” list or the stabbing of a Muslim in his home to an “anti-Hamas demonstrations” list. These later acts were divorced from any organised protest and they therefore cannot be placed in the protest section. Accordingly, we cannot put anti-Semitic attacks in the protest list.

Notwithstanding unnecessary duplication, if it is not sufficient that violent incidents are already noted in the section that pertains to the protests themselves, by all means head a section “Violent reactions”, but do not combine them with these hate crimes.

I am willing to rename the section “Hate crimes resulting from the conflict” or similar as I have a feeling that you are troubled by the prominent heading “Attacks on Jews and Israelis”. Fret not! Should Islamophobic attacks occur in response to the conflict, they will be added too. Chesdovi (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it seems illogical that graffiti is coming under the heading "violence". I think the section should be split into "Violence at protests" (because simple criminality is so commonplace at demos it isn't really notable IMO) -- might it not be better to include all this in the list of the demos themselves anyway? There should then be a separate section for "Reprisals and Hate Crimes" listing any criminal activity clearly commited in revenge / protest. Just my $0.002.--Chikamatsu (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not just your $0.002. You, Chikamatsu, are one of the enlightened wikipedians amongst us. Your opinion on this matter is greatly welcomed. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So, of course, is your opinion. Except I see none here about the content, but one about the editor. Do you feel that is constructive?--Cerejota (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As a caveat - if this approach is adopted, it is important that reprisals and hate crimes don't assume undue weight or prominence, as that would introduce bias.--Chikamatsu (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

there has also to be evidence that graffiti or whatever is connected with the gaza war. --Severino (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Chikamatsu (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The worry of undue weight here is a non-issue. It is all a reaction, is it not? Bias? We cannot leave out events because they only occur to one section of people. Chesdovi (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

daubings and graffiti don't belong to the "violence" section. either the title of the section has to be changed or these acts should be moved to a new section. at any rate there have to be (verifiable and neutral) sources according to which these listed acts of graffiti and daubing are reactions to the gaza war.--Severino (talk)

Well I'm glad you've also seen the light. VR wants these sections merged. Take it up with him/her. My hands are tied until Jandrews23jandrews23 or VR gives their approval. We don't really need a separate section on violence at protests. These details are mentioned in the notes box. Last night in London the police arrested 6 pro-palestinian protestors after they had hurled missiles at them. Police said they were intent on antagonising the pro-Israel demonstrators and the police. That's what Egypt accused Hamas of, antagonising Israel. I mean, what did they expect to gain from firing rockets into Israel? Would Israel just melt away under this rocket bombardment? They have reaped what they sowed. On the radio a Hamas spokesman said the rockets were resistance against the seige and blockade. What irrational people they are. They call for the "Zionist entity's" destruction, fire 6,000 rockets into Israel, kill its citizens and then expect and demand open borders?!! Before the intifada Israelis used to do their shopping in Gaza City. Today, due to Hamas' incitement, they would get lynched. Palestinian violence has brought catastrope and suffering upon themselves. It is difficult to imagine a peaceful future with such neighbours. Chesdovi (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't forget this is not a place for discussions on the subject. the subject, furthermore, are the international reactions to the conflict.--Severino (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Who removed the ~ ?

The ~ is needed because those numbers were rough estimates. Not to have ~ is misleading and inaccurate. Please replace them asap! Chesdovi (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not do it yourself?--Cerejota (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tad unreasonable Cerejota Superpie (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah

Earlier, there was consensus(Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Dispute_-_Official_Reaction_of_Australia) that only the government's reaction constitutes the official reaction, and not the opposition's reaction.

Hezbollah, is not the government of Lebanon, but rather forms the considerable bulk of opposition to Siniora's government there. Thus, Hezbollah's reaction, like the Australian opposition's reaction, should not be here.VR _talk 12:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

User Rama gives edit summary where he supposedly lists some incoherent statements ("rm map, incoherent with following statements (which are sourced)") as a reason for map removal. Of course "following statements" are not listed. On commons he insisted that some countries which called for the end of violence should be listed as neutral BUT failing to notice that some of them like Morocco condemned only one side and that they therefore fall into the group of countries condemning the Israeli action. He also tried to put USA as neutral per early statement from the Department of State completely ignoring what Bush said about the situation - "I understand Israel's desire to protect itself, and that the situation now taking place in Gaza was caused by Hamas" - which makes the US of one of the countries endorsing Israel. And so on. Map like anything on Wikipedia may contain errors but most certainly not where it was pointed.

Please discuss.--Avala (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Example: the caption of the map claims to put countries having called for a cease-fire in green, your map gives the impression that the USA are encouraging Israel to carry on shelling, and that France and Egypt are encouraging Hammas to further launch rockets, while the three have called for an immediate cease-fire. This is gravely misleading and tendentious.

Ultimately, The most important part of the map is based on Avala's personal evaluation of the "real feelings" behind the statements of such and such country. This is arbitrary and has a strong potential to entail serious miscaracterisation, which indeed happened. Rama (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your belief that states endorsing Israel equals to "encouraging Israel to carry on shelling" and that condemning Israel means "encouraging Hammas" is by no means true. I have tried to neutralize the legend. Almost all states will call for ceasefire but not all of them are neutral and that is why we have the blue and orange, to differentiate those with stronger positions. Otherwise you could paint them all green.--Avala (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Green remains caracterised as the colour of countries which have called for a cease-fire, suggesting that other have not called for a cease-fire. The statements of Egypt and of the USA are much closer that those of France and North Korea, for instance, yet your map parts them in a subjective way, and a downright absurd one.

Your statement that "Otherwise you could paint them all green" is also a symptom that you have a pre-concieved notion of the sort of map to which you wish to arrive: if the facts are such that all countries are in green, why would it be a problem? This map is supposed to reflect facts, not how it would be realistic that countries would act according to some ideology.

The caption claims to be based on clear criteria, like calls for a cease-fire, but the categorisation is in fact made on arbitrary judgements of value. This is unacceptable. Rama (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK now it says that those are the countries which neutrally called for halt of violence on both sides. I hope that now it's clear that green countries are supposed to be the ones that didn't take sides at all. And endorsement to Israeli position rather than action so to avoid tying it to support to bombing. I think that it is completely usable now.--Avala (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is unacceptable. First you promised something different than what you delivered. Now, you categorise countries based on your personal evaluation of whether they are doing "enough" to be in such or such category. This is subjective, arbitrary, and ultimately inherently tendentious. Admitting that what you deliver is not what you first claimed might be a progress, but the fact is that what you do deliver not serious.

The only way to save this map is to decide on a clear, unambiguous criterion, and stick to it. Labeling for instance Spain and Iran in one category of countries, and the USA in the "opposite side", based on your personal feelings, is not acceptable. Rama (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes when I made a map I was like "I feel that Spain is condemning Israel". Well NO. I read their statement. For the love of God, Israeli papers are listing Spain as "unfriendly country" these days! It seems that the map is for some reasons unacceptable to you personally and not for Wikipedia because all the reasons you list are quite vague like the one about Spain. I mean so what if their position is similar to the one of Iran? Australia voted against the US on Cuba (and Iran too), yet they are still an ally of the US. You seem to have some odd black and white view on world.

I am listing them based on their statements. Even Israeli press calls Spain unfriendly country. And them having the similar position with Iran, well Australia voted with Iran against the US on Cuba in the UNGA. So what? It seems you have a problem with that. You can't accept personally this fact that some countries that are usually not similar have similar positions on this issue so you decided to attack the map. You need to address the issue with real not subjective problems. Otherwise it's all bunch of letters on how you can't believe that Spain would be coloured in the same way as Iran. It doesn't mean that Spain shares the position of Iran on obliterating Israel. This map is solely based on reactions to this event and NOTHING else. It's quite clear as well - countries that endorse Israeli position (those that said that they have the right to defend themselves, that it is a defensive position or that it's solely Hamas being guilty), countries that condemned Israel only and called their attack an attack on poor Palestinian civilians etc. and called them to stop it and countries that called for the halt of violence without taking sides. It's very simple and you can see problems there only if you make them up to back up your fear that this map portrais Spain as being on the same side with Ahmadinejad.--Avala (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are listing them on a tendentious interpretation of their statements, which you just admitted yourself is in fact parrotting Israeli positions. I believed your map to be subjective, but it is now clear that it is downright partial.

If you want to have such a map, base it in indisputable and clear facts, like the date at which a country asked for a cease-fire. As such, this map meets neither criteria of neutrality, nor of seriousness and verifiability that Wikipedia demands. It is not acceptable. Rama (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen I could do the same thing about any image here - "this is not serious, I don't like this, this is subjective" etc. and ask for removal but the fact is you need to point at a specific problem which you are not doing. Just because you are shocked to see some countries that are usually distant in positions to have the same position on this one it doesn't mean we shouldn't have the map. It's actually only your view that it is shocking that both Spain and Iran condemned Israel and has no relevance on inclusion of this map in the article. You tried to put Germany as neutral even after Merkel endorsed Israel which sparked protests in Germany [6]. I don't see why are you accusing me of parroting Israeli position? I will repeat myself blue - countries that endorse Israeli position (those that said that Israel has the right to defend itself, that it's position is a defensive position or that it's solely Hamas being guilty), orange - countries that condemned Israel only (and called their attack an attack on poor Palestinian civilians etc. and called them to stop it) and green - countries that called for the halt of violence without taking sides. It's so simple that only if you are not looking at it in good faith can make you see something else in it.--Avala (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your acceptance of what is "without taking sides" is subjective. France, for instance, did condemn Hammas, but is labeled as not having done so.

Your map is inherently subjective, gross, and misleading. It must be replace with one based on clear criteria, or removed altogether. Rama (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective when we say that a statement saying "He said that the government would not choose sides in the conflict "We've avoided getting into a fairly pointless argument about who and what is a proportionate versus disproportionate response"." is not taking sides. Do you think there is something hidden behind that statement? Some hidden attempt to trick us all? Some conspiracy maybe? Some hidden attempt to condemn one of the sides without revealing it? And again you come with labels which are not backed with any arguments. Not because there is anything wrong with the map but because you dislike what you see.--Avala (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I dislike seeing something arbitrary and unserious, especially when is concerns grave and serious matters.

About subjectivity: take the example of France; the government has explicitly condemned Hammas rocket launches, and spearheaded an international initiative to come to a cease-fire; by all your criteria, France should be in green, yet it is orange. In practice, your criteria are irrelevant because how they are applied is entirely subject to your arbitrary evaluations.

Do not insult me by deforming my point. The problem is that you have made an extremely gross categorisation, which equates the positions of Spain and Iran, and a razor-thin "neutral" category from which you exclude some countries arbitrarily. Rama (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I will accept that I might be wrong on France but I can't understand that after my lengthy post where I explain that the map is not equating Spain and Iran you say that I am doing exactly that. I hope you were just cracking a joke. Just the same as with trying to show Germany as neutral when they clearly endorsed Israel which even sparked protests. I hope it was a joke too.--Avala (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits makes you map slightly less appalling, but the principle of it remains unsound. You still make a very brutal categorisation of countries, based upon your personal understanding of subtil diplomatic positions; since it is now clear also for you that you make very gross mischaracterisations, you should accept the logical implications and either redraw a map based on clear and unambiguous criteria, or drop the idea altogether. Rama (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason for my update to the map is Mubarak Sarkozy plan which came AFTER the initial condemnation of Israel so I am very consistent with the timeline unlike you when you tried to push some early spokesman statement above the later Bush statement. The map represents the current situation precisely and accurately.--Avala (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

France has constantly denounced both the Isreali bombings and the provocations of Hammas. Your position was wrong from the beginning. Furthermore, I told you about the franco-egyptian cease-plan already yesterday.

Now take the present state of the map: how do you justify colouring Finland orange, when it condemns both Hammas and Israel? And there are dozens of similar problems. Even taking into account your changing of the rules since, which probably makes the particular case of the USA acceptable.

This map represents nothing but the caricature of a poor understanding. I would have nothing against it if it did not claim to have some remote connection to reality. Rama (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No you see they first condemned Hamas but when Israel entered Gaza they condemned Israel and this is the later statement thus in timeline it comes after the first one but all are superseded by the peace plan. So France went from blue to orange to green. There is nothing final here. We show the situation as it evolves. And it doesn't mean that there are no errors in the map as anything else but mathematically it can be 1-2%. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used. Instead of pointing to true mistakes like Finland you wasted the whole day on useless discussion over how could it be that Iran got a chance to share a position with a western country or painting the whole map green with countries which were obviously not supposed to be green like Germany. If you concentrated on real issues (and I admit that when painting 100 countries they can happen) you fooled me around some issues that are absolutely unrelated like how could some countries have such positions or not or by disputing some quite clear countries by posting a very early statement ignoring the timeline etc. Please stick to the map only in the future.--Avala (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That is unsourced, incoherent with the caption of the map, subjective -- who are you to tell that the second statement cancels the first one? -- and incoherent with the quotation provided in the article.

Your categorisation is crude to the point of irrelevance, and having Spain and Iran in one single category makes absolutely no sense. Ultimately, of course, it stems from the rather childish notion that diplomatic statements can be classified in three classes -- there is a good reason why there are diplomats and statesmen issuing statements rather than ice skating judges brandishing panels with numbers. No, I am not willing to let you frame the problem in absurd terms and abide by arbitrary choices of yours: the classes you have defined are insufficient, their borders are wrong, and you do not even classify properly by these standards.

Germany, like the USA, called for both Israel and Hammas to cease fire. According to your caption, is was the criterion to be in green. Do you care at all to abide by your own rules yourself? I have pointed to a long list of problems, maybe you want to review them and come back when they are corrected. I am will probably have more to offer you at that time. Rama (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Who are you to deny Spain and Iran to have the similar position? It is not my point, Israeli press calls Spain unfriendly country. Who are you to deny that Germany endorsed Israel? It is not my point, this decision of the Berlin sparked protests all over Germany. On the other hand the only thing you have is that "having Spain and Iran in one single category makes absolutely no sense". Makes no sense to you, but honestly why do you think we care? Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, for an example, that Barack Obama is a president-elect of the US, so let's remove that information it makes no sense? Nope sorry. Either make some proposals on what is the problem you have with the map, apart from the POV statement that the map is childish, or I will have hard time to assume good faith. I mean your whole post is a bunch of POV, how you can't believe that Spain would share the position of Iran, how you dislike the map etc. which is all maximally irrelevant.--Avala (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not care about what Israel press (what Israeli press, incidentally?) says; and neither should you. Since when does the Israel press govern Spain and defines her diplomatic stances?

It is most peculiar that my "irrelevant" post has forced you to change your map on three countries already. Including France and Egypt. You are just not serious in the way you work; Wikipedia is an amateur project, but it doesn't mean it militates for intellectual laziness. Rama (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the map seems fair enough, and should be added, *provided* it can be updated on a regular basis.VR _talk 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The map must be based on verifiable facts, not on interpretations. Having subjective interpretations to decide whether a country has done "enough" to qualify as "green" or should fall in "blue" or "orange" is not acceptable by any Wikipedia standard. Rama (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are sources for each of the countries condemning Israel. Do you dispute a country in the list?VR _talk 12:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do dispute a number of countries. See the image talk page. Rama (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I've told you, you are not following the timeline. If an initial reaction was from a spokesman but then the President spoke we look at the later one.--Avala (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The image doesn't seem to have a talk page. Link me please?VR _talk 01:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland "condemn[ed]" Israeli actions as well.[7]VR _talk 12:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Will update it.--Avala (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Denmark didn't condemn the Israeli actions. Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller said that "although Israel has a right to defend itself against terror and terror rockets, civilian casualties are unacceptable". Despite he summoned the Israeli ambassador in protest at attacks on clinics run by a Danish charity in Gaza, this would be a normal reaction for such an event, but he did not withdraw his earlier position that Israel has the right to defend itself, and that civilian casualties are unacceptable. As Denmark has not followed suit with fellow Scandinavian countries, and should thus be green instead of orange. - Realismadder (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw what he said earlier but also I saw that the ambassador of Israel was summoned later which signaled the change of heart.--Avala (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
France seems to have condemned the Israeli ground operations.[8][9]VR _talk 07:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

anti-Israel?

I have participated in the pro-peace demonstration in Tel Aviv that is listed in the "anti-Israel" demonstrations here. It was a clear demonstration against this conflict but definitely not anti-Israel, the same can probably be said about several other demonstrations in the "anti-Israel" list. I'm not sure how to change it, but I feel it needs clarification in the article. Guaka (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the sub-headings to "Demonstrations condemning the Israeli offensive" and "Demonstrations supporting the Israeli offensive" from "Anti-Israel demonstrations" and "Pro-Israel demonstrations". Some of those condemning Israel's offensive do so out of their support for Israel and their belief that this offensive is counterproductive. Tiamut^talk 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that most the Pro-Israel demos are also not supportive of the operation itself. Although they do not openly condemn the war, neither do they hold placards saying "Go, Go Israel - bomb Gaza to smitherines" or "Starve Gaza - Keep the Siege On". (I am trying to use the opposite of placards of the anti-Israel crowd). The pro-Israel simply call for and "End to Hamas terror" and "peace for both sides", "Hamas: stop using human sheilds" and "stop Hamas rockets", etc. They are in support of Israel, but not necessarily its current operation and its consequences. How should we address this? Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think they are in support of the Israeli military operations, except they don't believe that the Israeli operations are responsible for the civilian deaths. Like you said they blame Hamas for the bombing of Gaza to "smitherines" and Hamas also for the "starv[ation]" and "siege" of Gaza.VR _talk 07:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

this is boring

Spice up with some pictures!--Cerejota (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not do it yourself?--Chesdovi (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Violence section - no evidence to link most incidents with recent conflict

I think, as mentioned before, that most of the events listed in violence have no evidence linking them with the current attacks. We can't list every anti-semitic attack in the world in this article (sadly).

I therefore propose the violence section is only for attacks that are clearly linked to the conflict. All other attacks should be removed.

If this is not popular, then at least 'daubing' incidents should be removed. They are not notable to be on Wikipedia. There are graffiti abuse incidents every day all over the world.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

yes,definitely.--Severino (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i've deleted some incidents which are not clearly linked to the conflict. still there are some where the link is only assumed; and -as mentioned already- those which can't be described as "violence" but rather as "vandalism" or "scolding". title of the section has to be changed or these incidents removed.--Severino (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sporting fallout section?

Palestine/Sports: Kanouté fined for Palestine support. Tiamut^talk 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, where do you think we should add this? Heworth man John Bibby fasts in Gaza protest Tiamut^talk 14:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

i think both cases should definitely have their place in the article. why not create new section(s).--Severino (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

we can also create a section of reactions of non-governmental persons/organizations (ordered by country?). for example, also south africa's anglican bishop desmond tutus words are relevant here but he is not a gvt. official and not a demonstrator.--Severino (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Daubing?

I apologize for the ignorance, but what's daubing? In the context of violence that is. I think it should be replaced with a more understandable word, but would like to know what exactly it means regardless. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's another word for grafitti. Slogans like "Kill Jews" and "Jihad 4 Israel". Chesdovi (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Violence at protests

Should violence at protests be listed in the "details" section of the protests lists or in a separate list? Chesdovi (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In details section because it is part and parcel of the demonstration itself. Chesdovi (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted two pov sentences from "Violence and Vandalism" section; offensive slogans not violent-POV from Israel supporters; using "direct action" a POV anti-property anarchist promotion of a specific strategy. Keep it in black bloc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I failed to notice there actually were antisemitic words at some protests. But putting violent acts and obnoxious words in same section, no matter what group against, gives negative POV of speech. And of course some people's criticism of Israel or its supporters is other people's antisemitism, which just increases the POV. So those incidents of alleged or real hate speech should be put in own section. It's an easy copy and delete relevant material from each copy. Also marching to an area and being stopped by cops in not violent and should not be portrayed as such. POV again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Violence arising from direct action

This seemed a better heading for that section than "anti semetic violence", however it is far from ideal.

If anyone has any ideas please go ahead. Superpie (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Per above I did. No description at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why that didnt occur to me at all! Thankyou :) Superpie (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

Do we have agreement that acts of violence which occured away from protests should be listed in their own separate section? I would head this up as Anti-Semitic attacks. This is not POV but reflects the reality. If any hate attacks occur against other sections of society in response to the conflict, the heading will be changed accordingly. Chesdovi (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current header is fairer and more accurate. One Palestinian has died after all. Readers quickly become aware of the high level of anti semetic/israeli attacks by looking at the cases and its from the cases the reader should draw a conclusion, not the header. Superpie (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think that there needs to be a separation between violence that occured during protests and violence aimed at univolved persons. Should we add all the violence that occured in Paris, Athens, London etc? Chesdovi (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seoul protest

I know it's minor, but could someone add it to the chart? I'm not experienced enough. Link:http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LPOD&mid=etc&oid=002&aid=0001947332 --119.149.135.35 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Computer Games section

Someone added a game to this section called 'What's Happening', but without any independent sources about it, just the link. Unless third-party sources can be found, I think this link should be removed as advertising. The 'Raid Gaza' game does seem to be notable, judging by the amount of references about it, and so should be included in this article; but that doesn't mean other computer games inspired by the conflict are automatically notable as well. Terraxos (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kedumim and Modi'in Illit

Kedumim and Modi'in Illit are Israeli municipalities under Israeli jurisdiction in the Judea and Samaria district. It doesn't make sense to have the Palestinian flag showing for them. --PiMaster3 ^talk 11:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

as you've linked to the "judea&samaria" article, you should also read it's introduction and the first section carefully.--Severino (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem sorting the list "Demonstrations condemning the Israeli offensive" by size

There seems to be a problem sorting the list "Demonstrations condemning the Israeli offensive" by size. maybe because some numbers are written like "1,000" and others "1000", but I'n not sure if that is the cause of the problem. --helohe (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I had this problem with the other list, but found that by pressing it a few times, it worked?! Chesdovi (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that works. --helohe (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Demonstration Image

I have replaced the image depicting the Palestinian supporters in Slovakia with a Wikipedia:Featured picture. Any change to the image should be discusses first. Muhammad(talk) 09:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

United Nations

Theres ALOT of information regarding the UN that needs putting into this article from the main. Are there any suggestions on how this can be done?

My personal is creating sub articles for the main players in each sub section so for international organisations, the UN, Arab League, possibly the OIC and so on so forth. Otherwise the tables are going to become somewhat unbalanced. Thoughts? Superpie (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, where to put this?

"The Israeli Prime Minister boasted of how he phoned up President Bush the day before while he was in the middle of a speech to tell him not to vote in favour, and how the incident left Condoleezza Rice "pretty embarrassed".^[1]"

States that have condemned only Israeli action

In the map I don't think there are too many states who have condemned only Israel. Even Saudi Arabia has criticized Hamas.VR _talk 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that Hamas is often considered a terrorist group, a more meaningful category would be "States that have condemned both Israel and Hamas".VR _talk 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Any objections to including it under "humanitarian aid"? The Squicks (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel should also appear in red on the map, as it does in fact give humanitarian aid to Gaza. 89.139.106.49 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ridiculous.--Severino (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is. But whether or not it is irrelevant. If something is notable, well sourced and expressed in a NPOV way, it goes into Wikipedia. The Squicks (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Its fair I suppose. Superpie (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How much did Israel donate? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Money wise, I have no idea exactly. So, I decided not to even mention aid in terms of 'goods delivered' at all. I did mention what I could could find absolute exact sources for: That Israel is giving 'round-the-clock medical support. I can't put a dollar value on that, though. The Squicks (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic caption

Hello, I've expressed my opossition against the caption and usage of the picture [[10]] at the discussion page. See and tell me what you think.

The picture depicts a boy (not an adult) stating that "Jews are terorrist". The boy is probably of Arab or even Palestinian origin and fond of Palestinians since he shows a Palestinian flag. It is incorrect to say that the boy has antisemetic feelings because:

1) "Semitic" refers to Arab or Jewish speaking people. This boy is probably of Arabian origin.

2) The term "anti" is of Greek origin and means "non".

3) The term "anti+semetic" means "non semetic", or in some cases freely interpreted as "against semitics". This means antisemetic refers to non Arabian or non Jewish people, being against Arabs or Jews.

4) When people of Israel accuse a democratically elected party of being terorrists, because they have killed 10 civilians, a boy (not an adult) can easily give Israeli democratically elected party the same accusation when killing 500 civilians.

5) A minor cannot be easily accused of something of such importance, beacuse, regardeless of the personal rights tag, cannot have the clear judgement of an adult.

Therefore I ask of the caption to be changed into something more like "anti-jews signs, anti-israeli signs, signs of hatred" if not picture withdrawn.

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is clear, regardless of how pedantic you try to be. You've laced this with POV quite irrelevant to the request you're making. I think the caption is fine, and fair. Superpie (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Superpie. See new antisemitism. The Squicks (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well actually I read it and see that academics speak of a new phenomenon and not antisemitism. I guess we cannot write an encyclopedia with ambiguous neologisms now can we? Especially when there are Zionist and American interests behind them. --Dimorsitanos (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dimorsitanos.

First, the caption misspells "anti-Semitism".
Second, "anti-Semitism" is bad because it targets a particular ethnic group: Ethnic prejudice is reprehensible. But now the defenders of Israeli war-making are trying to change the definition of "anti-Semitism" so that they can use the word to silence opponents of Israeli state terror. This inflated definition of "anti-Semitism" dillutes and devalues the word. When we call opposition to state terror "anti-Semitic", we turn "anti-Semitism" into a positive or noble thing, and we then have no word left for condemning ethnic prejudice. Under the guise of "Protecting Jews", we do them grave injury.
Third, it can be argued that the sign's use of "Jews" instead of "Zionists" makes the sign "anti-Semitic". This is a pedantic argument. The political intent of the slogan is clear from the object: "terrorists". The sign is expressing opposition to terrorism, not opposition to ethnicity. The distinction between "Jews" and "Zionists" is a crucial one, but it's not one that we can expect a child to make. For the child, "Jew" is synonymous with the people who are killing Palestinians. The sin here is not "anti-Semitism" so much as it is a lack of political maturity and clarity. NonZionist (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a pedantic argument. Of course it is not. If a child displays a sign that says "Blacks are rapists" outside of an anti-gang rally, that is because their parents gave them it. And their parents would be racists. It's racist for the same reason this little kid's protest sign is racist. The sign is collectively punishing every single Jewish man, woman, and child around the world for the actions of a minority of them. There are Jews, many of them, who opposed the Israeli bombing of Gaza and, due to their racial heritage, this child's family lumps them into a non-human monolith.

If the sign said "Arabs are murderers", wouldn't you also have a problem with it? It's the same issue, only from the opposite angle. The Squicks (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oslo, Norway

The article mentions that pro-Palestinian protestors in Oslo gathered in front of the Israeli embassy and "fired rockets at the police". It mentions them firing rockets more than once. This claim cant be true and is ridiculous. Where will protesters get REAL rockets to fire at police, and if they are real rockets fired by protesters, then surely some would have died -- but no one is dead because of protesters. Again, this claim is quite ridiculous. (67.189.84.10 (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)).

Table help.

I'm trying to add Oxford to the table of 'Demonstrations condemning the Israeli offensive' but when I do it the table looks broke. Could someone please add it in for me?

There were more than 650 who protested in Oxford. Here's the link to BBC news article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7835386.stm

Thanks. --TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 03:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, if you want to add details, do so after || with <small> (details here) :) Superpie (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

United States providing assistance?

I find the statement from Bush rather dubious. Paying overdue UN fees does not constitute giving aid to Gaza. That would be like saying that Ukraine paying its bill to Gazprom meant Ukraine was aiding the impoverished people of Chechnya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.202.71 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous protests in the wrong section

In the section listing protests in support of Israel the Melbourne protest is listed incorrectly and the New York protest uses a source stating the numbers for the pro-Gaza protest but has no numbers for the Pro-israeli protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.202.71 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for 5-color system

Dark blue: states that unreservedly supported Israel (condemned Hamas and did not significantly criticize Israel).
Light blue: states that reservedly supported Israel: (condemned Hamas and criticized Israel OR criticized Hamas significantly more than Israel).
Green: states that did not support either side (condemned both sides or criticized both sides approximately equally)
Light orange: states that reservedly supported Hamas: (condemned Israel and criticized Hamas OR criticized Israel significantly more than Hamas).
Dark orange: states that unreservedly supported Hamas (condemned Israel and did not significantly criticize Hamas).

I think there would be a few problems with this system, and I don't know yet if I myself would support it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is very well-intentioned, but I fear it will lead down a dangerous path. For instance, what can be considered "significant"? How do we decide if criticism is equal, given that we cannot consider the whole volume of statements issued by a given country? If a country is deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza, does that mean it is criticizing Israel? And so on and so forth. It's a lot easier to break down color than tint (though breaking down into color is hard enough, as evidenced by the above discussion). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but the UK has never reservedly supported Israel. In fact the UK has said nothing about support for Israel. The UK has condemned Hamas rocket attacks (which killed 3 civilians). It has condemned Israel of the bombing of the UN school. It has criticised Israel's use of Force (also again jointly with the EU). It has asked to stop the killing of civilians and halt to all violence. Also the UK has warned that Israel's actions could cause more extremism in Gaza. Ijanderson (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Saepe, I agree this system is inherently more susceptible to POV-laced interpretations, which is why I feel iffy about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we have:

Declared support for Israel/ endorsed the Israeli position. (or only negatively criticised Hamas)
Explicitly declared support for Hamas. (or only negatively criticised Israel)
Not supported either Hamas or Israel.

This surely will be easy to sort out the correct category and be NPOV. (We know countries are going to be against the killing of people/ attacks, so this should not be taken in to account for the map) Ijanderson (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is: how do you define "support"? If you require them to actually say "we support X", almost all the countries will be green or gray and the map will provide almost no information. If you define it more vaguely, we're going to get into arguments about whether each country supported one of the sides. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We could class support for Israel as "right to defend" Also aiming negative criticisms at one party ONLY. Ijanderson (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single country that's only criticized one side or the other. What's more, the question of what constitutes criticism will be answered differently by different people. What constitutes condemnation is crystal clear, because countries use the formulation "we condemn..." That's why I like the current system: it has a bright line which clearly distinguishes the color of a country. True, we are still arguing about a few countries, but it's just two or three out of the whole world that we haven't reached consensus on.

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about another 5 criteria system

Have endorsed the Israeli position (including right to defend).
Have condemned Israel only.
Have condemned Hamas only.
Not sided with/ condemned either Hamas or Israel.
Other/ not commented on the issue.

(No state has really declared support for Hamas as such) Ijanderson (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is similar to the current system as we currently use, however its more NPOV as it doesn't group together countries which have endorsed the Israeli position with countries that have condemned Hamas becuase these are two entirely different positions and therefore does not mislead the reader. Ijanderson (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea! I just don't like the pink color. I'm going to try my hand at changing the color. Someone please help out with changing the key, because I don't know how. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going ahead with this, I suggest two shades of blue, or blue and purple. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence. That's what I figured. Really it's not a coincidence, because these countries are far closer to Israel's position than to Hamas'. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, why is Sweden still orange? There was only one person arguing for that position, and he hasn't responded to arguments against him. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to err on the side of Wikilove, but I'll go ahead and change Sweden. We'll just have to see if it sticks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with an idea brought up by others: the map might be more informative if we make two shades of orange, too, as there are significant differences among orange countries. For example, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian National Authority and Saudi Arabia have sharply criticized Hamas, while other countries haven't. I don't see any reason that the differentiating criterion would have to be equivalent to the criterion used to decide between the shades of blue. It could be, for example: has the country criticized Hamas' conduct in this conflict. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bosnia-Herzegovina

avala, you reverted my edits. one of my points was that silajdzic is a representative of the federal government/the presidency council and therefore the wrong flag is displayed. the other point is that i doubt that its relevant respectively that it's correct to mention here the reaction of the prime minister of the serb. rep. you stated that the foreign policy of BiH is in a stalmate because they can't agree in the parliament. well, nonetheless the foreign policy falls under the competency of the fed. government, the two "sub-entities" don't have foreign ministers, the federal government has one. if we start to mention the reactions of representatives of countries' subdivisions, we have to broaden the article/the section.--Severino (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He must get the approval to speak in the name of the Bosnia and Herzegovina in foreign arena. He never gets it because Serb, Croat and Bosniak members of the Presidency block each other. At the UNGA, just like here, Silajdzic spoke in his own name, not in the name of Bosnia and Herzegovina as he had no authority which has to be given by all three members of the presidency. He spoke in his own name or better say in the name of his voters. That is why there is no difference between all politicians in Bosnia as none of them has the authority to speak and per House of Peoples it's hardly ever going to change because they will have to have a consensus on that one. If we counted Silajdzic only then Bosnia would be painted as supporting Palestine but the only fact is that he spoke in his own name, despite his official role of the presiding of the presidency. It might look odd and only because it is, but we can't do anything about it but accept the reality that there is a stalemate of the Bosnian foreign policy due to internal ethnic disputes. So this goes only for Bosnia and there is no reason to do a similar thing with countries that don't have such issues. I hope I cleared things up a bit.--Avala (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

you assess the DE FACTO state of the foreign policy of BiH (and i assume, this assessment is correct) but don't we have to orientate ourselfes on the DE JURE situation (which is, the federal government -the presidency and the council of ministers- is responsible for the foreign policy)? by the way, for me this is not a matter of the colours in the map but about mentioning in the section.--Severino (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No just the opposite. President of the presidency acts and says things without any approval of the other two presidency members which he legally needs in order to be a legitimate speaker on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So he is not a de jure representative and as for de facto that's a subjective thing.--Avala (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul

Really now, these two people merit essentially their own section? This blasts WP:Undue into millions of pieces. A sentence for each of them would probably be enough. The Squicks (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

calgary

there was a hundred or so people protesting in calgary, alberta canada as well. i cant remember the date --174.0.51.118 (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

When you remember the date lookup for the event in the news archive and then post it here.--Avala (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

This article should be split into other articles with the already created sections:

Official Reactions xxxx
Humanitarian Aid xxxx
Civilian demonstrations and protests xxxx

xxxx = 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict

The article is of the top longest articles on wikipedia and should therefore be split. Please think of splitting it. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. What do others think? Tiamut^talk 13:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is already very topic-specific. The average reader is not likely to read it, much less so of reading offshoots. Perhaps cutting it is a better solution than splitting it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove relevant and notable information just to get the article down to size. It's normal procedure to make spin-off articles based on article sections. Tiamut^talk 12:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tiamut, and mark the date as it may never happen again. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Aaaw shucks, Jalapenos, I'm blushing. May January 28 be our yearly anniversary of seeing eye to eye forever more. ;) Tiamut^talk 14:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree with saepe here (which also doesn't happen often) but strongly suggest that cuts must be conducted in consensus.--Severino (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

...and cuttings must not be used to rewrite the article...--Severino (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Saepe, I'm urging you to reconsider. I think people will be less likely to read content for which they have to scroll down to the end of a very long and clumsily structured article than content in a separate article. The content here is too thorough and reflects too much hard work (much or most of it yours) to go to waste. I also feel a need to point out that (as Tiamut said) spinning off sections into their own articles is common policy in Wikipedia, so we don't really need consensus to do it. Though I would hate to go head to head with you, so I probably wouldn't do that myself. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article really has to be split into separate articles. I'd be in favour of something like below as proposed

Official Reactions
Humanitarian Aid
Civilian demonstrations and protests

..plus one more about racially motivated attacks on people/property related to the events in Gaza to avoid content forking currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitic incidents alleged to be related to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.

I'm keen to avoid a situation where lack of space facilitates yet more I-P content forking or inappropriate context shifting. The article currently up for deletion could be renamed and expanded to cover incidents involving people/property from both sides i.e. it would become one of the 4 split off articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposition with current Map system/ key

It is POV to group together countries which endorse the Israeli position with countries which condemn Hamas. This implies that countries which have condemned Hamas also support the Israeli position, when they don't. The only logic I can see with grouping the two together, is to make Israel to appear to have more support than it does and this is in gross violation of NPOV. It needs to be changed by splitting the two positions. Ijanderson (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The key equally combines countries that endorse Hamas' position with countries that condemn Israel. In fact, there seem to be more countries that condemn Israel without expressly supporting Hamas (e.g. most Muslim countries) than countries that condemn Hamas without expressly supporting Israel. So if anything, an undesired effect of this map is to make Hamas appear to have more support than it actually does. I don't care, though, because this is essentially a conflict with two sides, and condemning only one of the sides is taking a side. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am also opposed to grouping together countries which condemn Israel with countries which support Hamas too. These are also two entirely different positions and can be classed as POV by grouping them together Ijanderson (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree but let's see if there is consensus for splitting those on the map because some still believe that this is a paper encyclopedia and do everything to cut articles. I think though that regular editors of this page will agree.--Avala (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also just because a country condemns X doesn't make it automatically support Y. Portraying/ implying this is POV. Countries can not take side if they wish, like the UK and EgyptIjanderson (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And no state has endorsed Hamas Ijanderson (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the map highly misleading. It gives UNDUE importance to a SYNTHESIS of meaningless rhetoric by politicians. It creates the appearance of sharp divisions in what is in fact a continuum of opinion. If we really need such a map, distinguish between countries that do nothing but issue self-rigtheous condemnations and countries that are actually trying to help the situation, or distinguish between pro-war and anti-war countries, or between countries that respect international law and countries that scorn it. NonZionist (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The current legend has colours that are nowhere to be seen in the map.--Avala (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, I don't know where you're getting your info from, but Syria and Iran; the primary financiers of the terrorist organization, have openly endorsed Hamas. Plus, nations such as France and Belgium have yet to prosecute the leaders of Comite De Bienfaisance Et Solidarite Avec La Palestine and the Al Aqsa Foundation, so that should prove they're indifference/political support. Hamas also has mutual ties with similar terror groups, such as [[Al Aqaeda], and the countries that support that as well. You're argument that the illustration is flawed is correct, but I don't see how it can be improved. The war isn't an Axis vs Allies sort of deal. Hamas is technically supported by dozens of nations if we count the charities/fronts/lobbies that go without prosecution from their host countries, but it would be kind of stupid to count that. It is however rather odd to say the map gives an overly-supportive image of Israel. Am I the only one? 09:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk)

Mention of protests but not of public reaction?

I'm curious why there is no mention of public reaction. One example I can think of is this opinion poll, and I'm sure there are others. Oren0 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because nobody put that information in yet. Go for it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

The map is incorrect in the case of Saudi Arabia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/saudi-arabia-hamas-gaza

I don't think Saudi Arabia was the only Arab country to blame Hamas either. I will check. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The current consensus in the discussion above is that the bright line for choosing sides is condemnation. Unless Saudi Arabia issues a statement saying "we condemn Hamas," it must remain orange. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic action

There is a new Diplomatic action section, which reads as follows:

Venezuela was the only country to take direct diplomatic action against Israel. It expelled the Israeli ambassador and Hugo Chavez called for Ehud Olmert to be tried for war crimes.

This section has its merits, but all in all, I think it is better left out of the article. I've deleted it, and have been reverted. Here are the reasons for which I think it should be deleted:

The source quoted says that Venezuela severed relations with Israel. It doesn't say that Venezuela was the only country to take direction diplomatic action against Israel.
This is factually incorrect. Bolivia, Mauritania and Jordan all took diplomatic action against Israel.
This fact that Venezuela severed diplomatic ties with Israel is mentioned in the table.
This article is way too long.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason for this section not to exist, but I agree that its content as it stood was inaccurate. There is asuggestion, which I support, to split this article into several articles. That would solve the length issue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand length concerns and if people don't want it, fair enough, but I feel the Venezuelan action should be mentioned in some way outside the table because it was much more notable and reported than 99% of reactions, and to expel an ambassador is quite a big thingJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an introduction to the section that summarizes the table. I suggest something like this:

Thirteen states, mostly in the western world, issued statement supporting Israel or its "right of self-defence." Another seven condemned the operations of Hamas. 35 states, mostly in the Muslim world, condemned Israel's attacks. Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania and Venezuela significantly downscaled or severed their relations with Israel in protest of the offensive. Most of the world condemned both sides, or neither side. For detailed diplomatic responses, refer to the table below.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That's the way a real encyclopedia article is written. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lets implement this into the article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

no way. the states which condemned israel, are also in latin america or asia and many are not muslim. furthermore, those who acknowledged israels "right to self defense" did not necessarily accept and support their methods, practices,... and the reaction which was issued by the biggest group of states, has to be mentioned first.--Severino (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an improved version thenJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not objected to listing the largest category first. There are a few Latin American nations that condemned Israel, the same could be said for the other side. How about this statement:

35 states, mostly in the Muslim world, condemned Israel's attacks, though none expressed support for Hamas. Bolivia, Jordan, Mauritania and Venezuela significantly downscaled or severed their relations with Israel in protest of the offensive.

Thirteen states, mostly in the western world, issued statement supporting Israel or its "right of self-defence." Another seven condemned the operations of Hamas.

Most of the world condemned both sides, or neither side.

For detailed diplomatic responses, refer to the table below.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also excellent. I may put this in the main article on the conflict. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the formulation has it's imperfections but i've no objection against using it in the article--Severino (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Country Color-Code

I went ahead and archived the previous discussion on this subject, because it got way too long to navigate. Ongoing disputes are summarized below:

Afghanistan

On the floor of the UNGA, Afghanistan said that it "stood with the Security Council in condemning all violence against civilians and in calling for immediate implementation of resolution 1860." Is it time to turn Afghanistan green? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of iffy about turning Afghanistan green, so I was hoping to get some feedback from other editors. If I don't, I'll go ahead and green it. Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Having seen no objection for more than a week, I went ahead and made the change. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Austria

Dark blue - I painted Austria dark blue because of the following statement: "We demand an immediate stop to the rocket attacks against Israel from within the Gaza Strip. The right of the Israeli people to a life in peace and security without permanent threat from rocket attacks must be guaranteed. […] Israel's legitimate right to self-defence is undisputable." True, they do place boundaries on this principle later in the statement, but it is overwhelmingly clear that their stance is pro-Israeli. May I ask why they have been painted light blue? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

no their stance is not pro israel. like in MANY other statements, the condemnation of the hamas and the commitment to israels security etc here is just something like a (demanded) preamble before critic on israels policy can be spoken out > "...The large number of civilian victims in recent days is unacceptable..." --Severino (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your judgment that the commitment to Israel's security is a demanded preamble, besides being OR, is wrong. The "preamble" is not demanded, and many countries don't use it; that's why they're orange or green, and Austria is blue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If Austria really intended their sharp condemnation of Hamas and support of Israel as a preamble to their criticism of Israel, why is the former (a) longer and (b) more strongly-worded than the latter? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

the latter part can not only be read as a condemnation of israels military operation but also as it's categorization as a violation of international law. that's pretty strong.--Severino (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You read it as a violation of international law. Austria never says that Israel violates international law. Even if it did, it never condemns Israel's offensive, but rather expresses its support thereof. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

to read out a support of of israels MILITARY OPERATION, is a misinterpretation...and if one adds one and one together here: "It is clear, however, that even during military operations, international law must be complied with.The large number of civilian victims in recent days is unacceptable." ...--Severino (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And at what point do they say that Israel violated international law? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

it's ok, you can keep the colour. however, my interpretation of the statement is different.--Severino (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading through again I am absolutely certain now that Austria should be painted green. They have condemned both sides and there is another way of condemning Israel but saying "we condemn Israel" which is "It is clear, however, that even during military operations, international law must be complied with.The large number of civilian victims in recent days is unacceptable." just like condemning Hamas can be said "we condemn rocket attacks on S.Israel". By all means Austria is not supporting Israel here. At best it's light blue because of the wording.--Avala (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're sythesizing the statement, what Austria is basically saying is "Israel has a right to go on its offensive, but it should really try to keep the civilian toll down". The caveat "but be careful" is used by almost every - if not every - blue country, including the US, so if we keep a country from being dark blue based on the caveat, the disctinction between light and dark blue will lose its meaning. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

They quite clearly use the word "unacceptable".--Avala (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Light blue doesn't mean moderate support for Israel, but rather condemnation of Hamas without condemnation of Israel. Since we don't have that here, light blue wouldn't be appropriate.

Avala, let me ask you this: Austria deliberately uses the word "condemn" against Hamas. Why would it not use that word against Israel if it were truly neutral? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Dark blue - I thought we had reached consensus on this, or I would have included it in the present discussion. I painted Denmark dark blue, given the following statement: Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that, "it was Hamas that broke the truce, and Hamas started the conflict by firing rockets on Israel. No country can just passively accept being fired on."[83] On the floor of the UN General Assembly, Denmark "fully acknowledged the right of Israel to defend itself against rockets and terrorist attacks and its right, according to the Charter, to self-defence […] within the limits laid out by, and in compliance with, humanitarian law." Why has it been painted green? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Ijanderson (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

oppose The Danish MFA stated against the israeli attack. It should be green.--84.238.113.244 (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Eritrea

Green - I have not yet seen a statement from Eritrea condemning Israel. I have seen statements denouncing the suffering of the Gazans. The dispute here is whether or not that is sufficient to paint Eritrea orange. Unless Eritrea says it believes that said suffering is due to Israel's actions exclusively, I maintain it would be WP:OR to paint it orange. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They called the Israeli action "unacceptable atrocities" which is condemnation. It's not neutral. For a country to condemn they don't have to use the word "condemnd", this word has synonyms and it can also be described with a phrase.--Avala (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll note that Eritrea doesn't call Israeli actions "unacceptable atrocities," but rather say that Palestinians are subjected to unacceptable atrocities. The two are very different things, and here's why: Eritrea does not specify an actor. They may be saying Israel is committing atrocities against the Palestinians, they may be saying that Hamas is doing so, or they may be saying both. I'm inclined to think it's the third, but what I think doesn't really matter, since it would be WP:OR to draw conclusions about the target of their criticism.
I think that we have a legitimate philosophical disagreement about what constitutes condemnation of a country. We need to come up with a universally-applied standard of what constitutes a condemnation. If we choose your interpretation (that is, that any sharp criticism is a condemnation), then we must also paint half of the Arab world green, because it criticized Hamas. I'm inclined to say that a country can only be regarded as having condemned a belligerent if it actually says "We condemn side A." The reasons for this are manifold:
1. Countries deliberately choose their wording carefully. Diplomatic statements are written under the lens of a microscope, as it were, and more or less every word is deliberately chosen. If a country wanted to condemn one side or another, they could do that by saying "We condemn them." It isn't exceptionally hard to do, and many countries on the map did just that.
2. Using the standard of condemnation rather than criticism lays out a bright line that avoids editor bias. It is very clear-cut whether or not a country condemned a certain side (or both). It is not as clear whether or not it criticized a side. So we would need to insert our own judgment as to what level of criticism constitutes a condemnation, and that would be the worst type of WP:OR.
3. Every country criticized both sides to some extent (because they don't like to appear totally biased). So should we make every country on the map green? At the point when we make criticism and condemnation equivalent, we make the word "condemn" absolutely meaningless.

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is OR, thinking that when Eritrea called the attack on Palestinians "unacceptable atrocities" they meant Hamas because Hamas did not attack Palestinians, it was Israel. It's quite clear. Anything beyond that is speculation. It's like if some country said that terrorist missile attacks on Southern Israel must stop, it's obviously condemning Hamas not Israel even though they didn't use either name. There is zero space for different interpretation. --Avala (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Eritrea said Palestinians "are currently being subjected to unacceptable atrocities." They said nothing about attacks. I would say that Hamas' callous use of civilian shields, deliberate killing of 40-80 Palestinians (at least), refusal to allow Palestinians to seek medical aid in Egypt, attacks on medical and humanitarian convoys, etc. constitute "unacceptable atrocities."

But let me emphasize again: what I think doesn't matter. Unless Eritrea says that Israel is responsible for the atrocities, it would be WP:OR to say that that is their intent. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It can't be green because the key for Green is for "States that have called for halt of the hostilities on both sides or condemned both Israel and Hamas.". Eritrea has not called for a halt of hostilities and it hasn't condemned both Israel and Gaza. Eritrea does not fit the criteria for green. This just proofs why using one "descriptive" word for grouping countries is silly because counties like Eritrea do not fit in any of the groups. They are not neutral, the are pro Palestine, but have not condemned "Israel" therefore can't fit in the same group as all the other countries who are pro Palestine too. Ijanderson (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I have therefore added the following statement from the Eritrean president: "The pointless killings and murders on both sides must come to an end; a solution must be achieved for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Hopefully, we can all agree now that Eritrea is green, right? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kuwait

The statement from Kuwait dates back to January 2008. Can anyone find a statement from the recent conflict? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, here's one:

"The Israeli attack against Gaza is a war crime condemned by international law," said Sheikh Sabah. […] Sheikh Sabah appealed to Palestinian politicians to seek unity and condemned the divisions between the rival Palestinian political factions, Fatah and Hamas.

So here's another case where I think a country should be green, but I'm going to ask for consistency, whatever the decision is. If we decide that the UK is green for criticizing a single Israeli action, then Kuwait must be green for condemning a systemic and prolonged Hamas action. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, they are not condemning the Hamas action but the "divisions between the rival Palestinian political factions". On the other hand they condemn the Israeli action in 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict which this article deals with. Kuwait could be painted green if the article was called "International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and inter-Palestinian relations".--Avala (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This condemnation was made in connection with the conflict, and does not stand alone. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but we don't deal with condemnation of inter-Palestinian problems in the map. It's something completely different. It has got nothing to do with Israel–Gaza conflict which this article and map deal with but Fatah-Hamas conflict.--Avala (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Saepe, I think that this case is analogous to the example with your Dad that you mention below under Lithuania. In other words, Kuwait saying to Gaza "you're doing it all wrong" shouldn't make Kuwait green. I do think, however, that this case illustrates the danger of using a reaction to a specific incident/aspect to define a country's stance in a conflict. I mean, in the Six Day War Israel accidentally strafed an American ship. America probably condemned the hell out of them for that. But could we really say that America didn't stand on the side of Israel in the Six Day War? C'mon. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I agree with you. I actually made a typo above. I don't think Kuwait should be green, but I do think it must be green if countries such as the UK are to be green. It's more about consistency than just about Kuwait. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Kuwait is condemning the inter-factional conflict, not Hamas' attacks on Israel.VR _talk 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On second thought I may be persuaded to accept greening Kuwait as a compromise (if countries like UK were also greened) because of the similarities in their positions.VR _talk 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania

Dark blue - I painted Lithuania dark blue because of the following statement: An official statement by the Lithuanian government said that he "is aware of Israel’s right to defend its citizens from the terrorist attacks of Hamas. This sure seems to "support Israel's right to self defense. Like with Austria, this statement is not unqualified, but is clearly pro-Israeli. May I ask why the country has been painted light blue? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but just like in the case of France they have made a neutralizing statement - "In solidarity with other EU countries, Lithuania expresses big concern regarding provocations, violence and victims in southern Israel and the Gaza Strip, calls for an immediate ceasefire and urges the sides in conflict to return to truce.".--Avala (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling on Israel for a truce is not the same as condemning it. My dad often used to tell me, "Son, you know I'll always be there for you. You did great. But here's what you could have done better." Bad example maybe, but you get my point. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan

We have called for the end of the firing of these rockets, which do not serve the Palestinian cause in any way.

One of many instances where I don't think there's really a condemnation. But if we're going to go with the rule that criticism = condemnation, let's apply it here too and make Pakistan green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well at best it would be light orange, but there is no light orange only light blue so we can't apply that.--Avala (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Light colors do not represent moderate support for one side, but rather condemnation of a single side without support of either. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to follow, the map colours have been changed again. They change so fast that not even the legend follows them up :) --Avala (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

lol. I don't think light colors ever represented moderate support for one side or another. But it's my mistake on the legend. It's hard for me to change it, so I just left it alone, hoping someone else would do it. That wasn't exactly the responsible thing to do. I guess I'll update it now. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Alright, I really didn't want it to come to this, but I feel we're getting stalemated. So here goes: consider this publication by the Saudi government. It says, "Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia oppose Hamas." The document was written on January 18, as a response to the conflict.

If we do not set the bar for condemnation at explicit condemnation, Saudi Arabia must be green. Myself, I think it should remain orange, but anyone who wishes to revert Sweden and the UK (and certainly Austria) must also paint Saudi Arabia green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

PS - Surprisingly, some states in the Arab world – notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia – have condemned Hamas for the violence (archive). A journalist categorized Saudi Arabia's stance as condemnation. Ijanderson, would you then say that Saudi Arabia is green? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Same as Pakistan. Perhaps it's time for light orange? I think it would the problem perfectly, plus it's obviously needed as a counterweight for light blue.--Avala (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia should be categorized as nations that have condemned both sides.VR _talk 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It all goes back to whether or not you think criticism counts as condemnation. Again, I don't think it does, but I do think it's important to be consistent. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

South Africa

Green - South Africa asked the UN Security Council and General Assembly to condemn the attacks of both sides, as per the statements below:

General Assembly: BASO SANGQU (South Africa), aligned his country with the statement of Cuba made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the violent situation in Gaza and southern Israel made it imperative for the Assembly to collectively and publicly voice its condemnation of the attacks and demand that both sides immediately cease their military attacks.

Security Council: The violence over the past few days in Gaza and in southern Israel has worsened to such an extent that many innocent civilians have been killed or injured. That makes it imperative that the Security Council, which is entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, publicly voice its condemnation of the attacks and demand that they cease immediately.

Given that the General Assembly statement flows better, I will go ahead and include it in the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

you did not cite completely: "The South African Government had expressed its view that the Israeli air strikes were violating international humanitarian law and human rights law and were an excessive and disproportionate use of force by Israel. South Africa was particularly concerned with the devastating humanitarian consequences of the occupation, the siege and continuing attacks into Gaza. The situation had been made worse by the escalating military attacks that had killed United Nations humanitarian workers. He joined the Secretary-General in calling for full and unhindered humanitarian access to let aid workers work in safety."--Severino (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that South Africa condemned Israel. That point is already adequately made in the article. But it also condemns Hamas. That's why it should be green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

Green - The dispute here is over whether or not Sweden has technically condemned Israel. Sweden's statement in the article cannot but be read as opposing the Israeli action, but Sweden has issued no formal condemnation of Israel, and that has (in all odds) been deliberate. The country's position on the conflict has been characterized by neutrality, with one or two glitches by the FM, in which he swung in the not-so-Israel-friendly direction. Absent a formal condemnation from Sweden, I believe the country should remain green.

One of the things that troubles me about Sweden is that the FM's statement is not from a print source, but comes as a video. This wouldn't be so problematic if it weren't for the fact that it's a foreign-language source, so the average English reader cannot understand what is being said, and cannot even turn to an online translator. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems someone removed the whole quote which is a reason why Sweden is painted orange. It would be OR to describe it as a glitch. If it was a glitch he will retract the statement.--Avala (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Formal statements are what we should be going by. The article deals with reactions of countries, not of individuals. Sweden issued three formal statements about the conflict, and all three of them were bone-crushingly neutral. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interviews are not official statements. I would not normally mind including an interview in the table and graph, if it weren't for the fact that, (a) it contradicts all of Sweden's official statements, (b) it's a foreign-language source, (c) it's a video source, (d) I haven't found a reliable print source for it. If this statement were so fundamental to the Swedish position on this issue, why would we not find a single official statement from Sweden to this effect? Even if we did, there is still not condemnation of Israel by Sweden.

Avala, if you can find an official statement from the Swedish government that condemns Israel, then I will remove my objection to painting it orange. Unless you find such a statement, please leave it green, because Sweden did not condemn Israel. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, "The article deals with reactions of countries, not of individuals" - yes but please tell when you see a "country" speaking. Countries are not live things, they are form of organizations that have their representatives which are usually called foreign ministers and their statements are always official reactions of the country they represent.--Avala (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Saepe Fidelis, all I know is that we have OR rules here and that if media makes headlines of one sort we can't twist them to the other side. It's simply against the rules.

Sweden condemns Israel's Gaza invasion - Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt harshly condemned Israel's deadly assault on Gaza late Saturday, insisting the invasion would seriously hamper diplomatic attempts to find a solution to the conflict...

--Avala (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this source was already brought up at least once. The journalist says "harshly condemned", but condemnation does not appear in the actual quotes from Bildt in the article. The criticism Bildt has for Israel in the article is equalled by the criticism he levels at Hamas in the official statements. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that its a journalists choice of words is WP:Original Research, so any edits based on WP:OR should not be allowed, because it violates wikipedia's policies. We should go by what the source says and the source says "Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt harshly condemned Israel's deadly assault on Gaza late Saturday, insisting the invasion would seriously hamper diplomatic attempts to find a solution to the conflict." Ijanderson (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting way more complicated than it needs to: Can anyone find a statement from the Swedish government that condemns Israel? I don't mean someone saying that that's what they said. They publish their own statements, so why does the word "condemn" not appear in them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That source is from Bildt, he is FM of the Swedish government. Whats wrong with it? Ijanderson (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, I don't know how else to say this. I've tried every way that I know, and so has Jalapenos. Bildt never said "I condemn Israel." Bildt said something not so stellar about Israel, and a journalist interpreted that as him condemning Israel. The irony of the matter is that we have the actual statement made by Bildt, and it does not include condemnation. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But disagreeing with the source by saying "a journalist interpreted that as him condemning Israel" is Original Research. We have a source saying Sweden "harshly condemned Israel". Go we the the source. Quotes are not needed. Ijanderson (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree with you if it weren't for the fact that we have the actual statement, and it doesn't include a condemnation of Israel. Why should we consider a third-party's interpretation more important than the actual words of the Swedish FM? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

We by no means condone the continued rocket attacks launched against civilian targets in Israel

If the threshold for condemnation does not require that the country use the word "condemn," then clearly Turkey should be green. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

HIGH-LEVEL tensions over the assault on Gaza spilled into the public spotlight when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan erupted at Israel's most revered statesmen and stormed off the stage at the World Economic Forum after being cut short during a passionate exchange over the recent conflict. "You kill people," Mr Erdogan told Israeli President Shimon Peres angrily before walking out of the room, saying: "I will not come to Davos again." .... "Erdogan in particular feels personally passionate about what happens in Gaza," said Mr Pope, noting that the Turkish Prime Minister was vocal over the bloody fighting in Gaza in 2004 and Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
-- Correspondents in Davos (2009-01-31). "Fury erupts at Gaza conflict". Retrieved 2009-01-31.

"You kill people" -- that sounds like a condemnation to me. NonZionist (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, welcome to the discussion. First, let me say that the quotation you present is from significantly after the end of the conflict, and is therefore non-topical. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the topic is "reaction to the conflict" -- not "immediate reaction" or "reaction before 15 January". Ask yourself why someone would come to this article. Would they want to know only the first superficial statement made by a diplomat, or would they want the CONSIDERED reaction over time? The initial statement is generally perfunctory and inconsequential. An article that is arbitrarily limited to this initial reaction would be of little interest or use. The developing and extended reaction is what is consequential. Therefore, I argue that the Turkish reaction is entirely topical -- and the same applies for the French and Spanish reactions, below. NonZionist (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second, I did not make the post above because I believe that Turkey is green, but because I believe we should be consistent. Jalapenos and I have been arguing that a country can only be considered to have condemned one side or another if it uses some form of the word "condemn" against that side. Ijanderson has been arguing that criticism can count as condemnation (and I suppose you agree with him). The problem with "Sounds like a condemnation to me" is that the question of what is a condemnation is left up to the discretion of individual editors. By its nature, this will invite an onslaught of WP:OR that will result in more or less the whole map being painted green and gray (ergo my opposition to such a lax interpretation of condemnation). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated on several occasions, I'm not a big fan of the chart. We have somewhat arbitrarily decided to give UNDUE importance to one particular word, "condemnation". We have decided that the word of a diplomat is more newsworthy than a country's ACTION. This has the effect of impose our own divided and almost bipolar worldview on what is in reality a complex continuum: We are manufacturing a clear division where none exists. If we want to divide up the world, there are better ways to do it. E.g., we could give one color to pro-war countries and another color to anti-war countries, or we could divide countries into those that support the Geneva Conventions and those that disregard these conventions, or, finally, we could give one color to those countries that actually try to improve the situation and another color to those countries that issue self-righteous and unhelpful condemnations. NonZionist (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In spite of my opposition, I realize that this is still a nuance under discussion. So my point is this: if we're going to paint countries like Austria and the UK green, and countries like Sweden orange, then we must also paint countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey green. I'm also going to start searching for other countries that fit the description. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would scrap the map altogether. We should stop trying to force diverse reactions into our own narrow little schema. NonZionist (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're doing a pretty good job. We've had our disagreements, but we agree on at least 95% of the map. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam

Green - Here is their statement:

Vietnam condemned "all indiscriminate attacks against civilians," and urged both parties to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict. Vietnam's Deputy Foreign Minister said, "We urged Israel to stop the excessive and disproportionate use of force, end its military operations and immediately withdraw forces from Gaza."

It sounds green to me. Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Ijanderson (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

UK

Green - Hamas was condemned for rocket attacks. Israel was condemned for destroying the UN HQ. Both have been condemned, therefore green.

condemning Hamas "We’ve condemned the rocket attacks from Hamas on the state of Israel."
condemning Israel "Gordon Brown condemned Israel's shelling of the United Nations HQ in Gaza today as "indefensible"."

Objecting to this on the grounds of WP:Original Research is not allowed and unfair. I will have to report to an Administrator if someone violates one of wikipedia's policies. Ijanderson (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, we've already been through this: you bring sources, we explain why the sources don't lead to the conclusion you want them to lead to, you ignore the explanations, and after a while you bring the same sources again. Please note that your opinion on what constitutes OR is not the same as what actually constitutes OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you oppose the use of that source for OR reasons, therefore they can't be taken into account. WP:OR says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Ijanderson (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, Ijanderson, I don't oppose the use of that source for any reason. Rather, I oppose your attempt to change the UK from blue to green based solely on that source, because your attempt violates consensus. The consensus was that the main criterion would be whether the country condemns a side in its own words. Sometimes, to see whether it does or not, it is necessary to read the actual statements, which are published online. The consensus is not the least bit tainted by OR, since reading statements is no more OR than reading newspaper articles describing the statements. Like I said before, the consensus is not necessarily the best way to do things, and you are welcome to try and change it. But given that that is the consensus, and given that no source has been presented showing that the UK condemned Israel in its own words regarding the conflict, the UK must be blue for now. If you present such a source, I will support its being green. I've already said all of this to you before, and I hope I won't end up saying it again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, that source tells us that the UK did condemn Israel. Now please tell me what is wrong with it? The reason you won't accept it as proof that the UK did condemn Israel, is because it doesn't use a quote. Nevertheless, the source tells us/ reports to us that the UK has condemned Israel and we have to accept that and take it as truth. Not accepting it by saying its not a quote and that it is a journalists word choice is the WP:OR part, because that is your analysis on the source, instead of using what it says. Its your analysis by saying that "the UK did not condemn Israel, its just a journalists twist, therefore we can't accept that source as proof that the UK condemned Israel". The journalist has told us what has happened (thats their job) and the journalist has told us that Gordon Brown condemned Israel for blowing up the UN HQ. Therefore this is a source saying the UK has condemned Israel. This is what has happened (regardless if you personally disagree). Your argument can not be taken into account because it is original research. The consensus is that green is for countries which have condemned both Israel and Hamas. I know the consensus. That source tells us that the UK has condemned Israel. Also the UK condemned Hamas. So according to consensus, we are to make the UK green, because the UK has condemned both. Ijanderson (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the source, but the source does not say that the UK condemned Israel in its own words. It is also a simple fact that the UK did not condemn Israel in its own words. One knows this simple fact not by doing OR (such as personally asking the Foreign Minister), but by reading the official statements of the UK, which are published online. Are you arguing that the consensus does not require condemnation in the country's own words? Or are you arguing that if a news report defines a statement as condemnation, that magically changes what the words of the statement were? I really, honestly don't understand what you're saying. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jalapenos here. If they UK wanted to condemn Israel, it would do so in a statement, just as it did for Hamas. I would also add an important point: the UK condemned one Israeli action, while condemning the entire Hamas position in the war. The two simply cannot be regarded as equal. By comparison, I may say that Britain passed an unjust law, and that Saudi Arabia has an unjust system of laws. Have I really said the same about the two countries? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you disagree with this source saying "Gordon Brown condemned Israel's shelling of the United Nations HQ in Gaza today as "indefensible"."? Lets say Obama and Brown met yesterday and the news reported this, you wouldn't believe it until you read a quote by Brown or Obama saying "I met with him yesterday"? Is the quote needed? The answer is no. The news has reported that Brown has condemned Israel. Period. Ijanderson (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, are you even reading what we're saying? we're not disagreeing with the source. We're saying (over and over again) that the consensus holds that the main criterion should be what the country said in its own words. The source does not say that the UK condemned Israel in its own words, for the simple reason that the UK did not do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reading what you have said. Where is this consensus? Please dig it out of the archive. Ijanderson (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I have to say that your interpretation of consensus might be a little too lax. I don't think there was ever conensus to that effect, but I definitely think there should be. Anyone can say that the UK condemned Israel, but if the UK doesn't say so, why are we putting words in its mouth? British diplomats are sufficiently capable of articulating their own thoughts. In fact, they have. They explicitly condemned Hamas, and chose not to do so for Israel. Diplomatic entities do so deliberately, as the use of the verb "condemn" carries certain implications that other verbs don't. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So there never was a consensus... Well its time to build a consensus and archive it, so we can refer back to it in the future. Ijanderson (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion about that below. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be green. It is true that they condemned one Israeli action. But of course hardly any country (except Iran et al) will condemn all Israeli actions. In fact, those who condemn Israel only condemn its killing of civilians, not of its killing of Hamas militants lobbing rockets into Israel.VR _talk 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between condemning a pattern of behavior and condemning a single action. The condemned Hamas' entire conduct in the war, and criticized one Israeli action. While we're on the subject, the merely criticized Israel's bombing of the UN compound; they did not condemn it. The difference is critical. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

France

PARIS (Reuters) - France summoned Israel's ambassador Wednesday to complain after French diplomats were blocked for hours on the Jewish state's border with the Gaza Strip and Israeli soldiers fired warning shots at their convoy. French Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said France's consul general based in Jerusalem and several of his colleagues traveled to Gaza Tuesday to assess the reopening of border crossings and to inspect projects funded by France. "At the end of this visit, the convoy, which had planned to go back to Jerusalem in the evening, was blocked by the Israeli authorities for more than six hours at the Erez border crossing," Chevallier told reporters. "The convoy, which also included other European diplomats, had two warning shots fired at it from Israeli soldiers," Chevallier added. He said the Foreign Ministry summoned ambassador Daniel Shek "to protest against this unacceptable incident and demand explanations from him."
-- Francois Murphy (2009-01-28). "France summons Israeli envoy over Gaza border scare". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-01-31.

It looks like France remains critical of Israel. NonZionist (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) France condemned both sides during the operation, so a condemnation of Israel would not change it from green to Orange. (2) What happens after the operation is irrelevant. (3) This incident is not directly related to Israel's Gaza offensive. (4) There is no condemnation of Israel here. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Israel's aggression in Gaza is not over.
Where else does the information belong? Creating a separate article for reaction to the immediate aftermath of the Gaza attack does not seem warranted.
As I state above, this article is not limited to immediate reaction to the first phase of the Gaza operation. The reactions that develop over time are actually more telling than an immediate and perfunctory condemnation. It seems to me that most readers who come here will be looking for consequential and long-term effects on relations between Israel and other countries.
We have no basis for singling out the word "condemnation". If a country expresses displeasure and hostility towards Israel, that is as good as "condemnation". Some amount of judgment on our part is required, if only to decide what French word is the equivalent of the English word "condemn". The real problem here is that we are imposing our own categories on reality, and we are making a fetish out of certain words in order to make it seem like our simplstic categories are well-grounded. NonZionist (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the assertion that the conflict continues. My point was that France condemned both sides during the operation, so condemning Israel would not change it from green to orange.
I'm not sure this information belongs anywhere. I don't see how it's notable in its own right, and it isn't part of Operation Cast Lead.
I agree that developments following the conflict are important, but the reactions to the conflict must be measured in the temporal vicinity of the conflict. Otherwise, we may be dealing with retroactive reactions to the conflict, which aren't useful.
So would you say that if a country expresses displeasure towards Hamas, it is as good as condemning Hamas? If that is the case, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other countries that condemn Israel and merely criticize Hamas must be green (see discussion below). I will also say that there is a special significance to the word "condemn." It is the bright line between criticizing and taking an official stance against a belligerent. Countries use it deliberately. As for the French word, I have taken enough French to know that the verb in french is "condamner." There is no ambiguity about that. Also, we can rely on official translations provided by the French government, which are quoted in the article as time and again condemning both sides. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spain

A Spanish judge's decision to investigate seven Israeli officials over a deadly 2002 attack against Hamas that had nothing to do with Spain has renewed a debate about the long arm of European justice. .... The most recent case involves a 2002 bombing in Gaza that killed Hamas militant Salah Shehadeh and 14 other people, including nine children. Spanish Judge Fernando Andreu agreed to take the case on the grounds the incident may have been a crime against humanity — prompting a furious response from Israel.
-- Paul Haven (2009-01-30). "Spain's probe of Israelis presents legal quandary". AP News. Retrieved 2009-01-30.

The Spanish judge is here investigating whether Israel's assassination of a Hamas official involved the commission of "a crime against humanity". NonZionist (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) This pertains to a 2002 incident, not the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. (2) This is an ongoing investigation. (3) Spain has condemned both sides, so a condemnation of Israel would not turn Spain orange. (4) A Spanish court finding Israel guilty of war crimes does not constitute a political condemnation. (5) This is still an investigation, not a shut case. (6) "the incident may have been a crime against humanity". Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I find your arguments here more convincing than your earlier arguments. Yes, the Israeli bombing is a 2002 incident. However, the investigation is being brought forwards now. This suggests that Israel will now be placed under greater scrutiny. It is likely that this heightened scrutiny is a consequence of Israel's attack on Gaza -- other countries may be losing patience with Israel. That, of course, is not for us to say, but neither is it our job to rule it out. All we can say is that the two events are proximate in time: Israel devastates Gaza, then Spain investigates whether Israel has committed a crime against humanity. The investigation needs to be in the "possibly related" category. NonZionist (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:RS which provides any semblance of the link you draw. And that is no surprise, because you are making a serious accusation against a court of law. Actually, you are laying three accusations against it: (1) that the court would, were it not for Operation Cast Lead, have turned a blind eye to what may be violations of international law, (2) that it has ceased to turn a blind eye to these alleged violations because it is "losing patience with Israel," and not because of some reason founded in law, and (3) that it has allowed Spain's political institutions to influence its decision-making process. These are very serious allegations, and require hefty substantiation. As of now, there is none. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist the reaction may be a present reaction, but it is nonetheless to a 2002 event. Also, it is already accepted that Spain has condemned Israel (and that it has condemned Hamas). So unless Spain retracts its condemnation of Hamas, I don't see a color change as appropriate.VR _talk 15:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DPRK

I see that North Korea "denounced" Israel,[11] but did it also express support for Hamas' "right of resistance"?VR _talk 15:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot to add that part to the article. It's in there now. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamaica

Jamaica, according to the article, said (emphasis added):

The Government of Jamaica is deeply concerned at the recent escalation of the conflict in the Gaza Strip. We recognise Israel's right to protect its citizens. We are, however, alarmed at the disproportionate and excessive use of force displayed by the Israeli government, which has resulted in numerous casualties, including the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, as well as the destruction of infrastructure. […] We are no less concerned about the indiscriminate firing of rockets over many weeks into Israeli territory by Palestinian militants. This cycle of violence and retaliation impedes efforts to broker lasting peace in the region. […] Jamaica joins others in calling for a ceasefire and urges both parties to refrain from further action that could result in an escalation of the conflict.

To me this seems like a pretty even-handed approach to the conflict. Shouldn't Jamaica be green, then?VR _talk 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is green. Are you sure you're looking at Jamaica? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

^ Landler, Mark (13 January 2009). "Olmert says he made Rice change vote". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] Landler, Mark (13 January 2009). "Olmert says he made Rice change vote". {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]