Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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

PFLP

The Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP-GC, and the AL Aqsa Brigades are all on the Hamas side of this conflict. Check their respective websites, they claim responsibility for about 30% of rocket attacks.

Why did the edit ninjas remove their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"On January 4, 2009, Israeli forces bombed two houses in an attempt to assassinate Jamil Mizher, member of the Central Committee of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as part of their campaign of assassinations and home bombings targeting the leadership of the Palestinian resistance."

I thought a political front that accounts for 5% of the Palestinean political population would be worth mentioning?

3rd largest party in Palestine, second largest in the PLO, one of Hamas's key partners, unmentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.53.129 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed a comment I made here because it was innaccurate.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This article points out that Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad continued firing a few rockets during the ceasefire without Hamas' authorization. Obscuring the role of these two factions could be motivated by the desire to claim that Hamas never respected the ceasefire - it was broken by an Israeli raid. As the article points out, Israeli propaganda in the past has focussed on the reductivist tactic of attributing all Palestinian violence to the one faction which is the most potent political threat to Israel, in this case, Hamas. PS. I wish I'd chosen the ueername EditNinja :D--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

International Protest

Can somebody please add New Zealand: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0901/S00051.htm and http://www.stuff.co.nz/4810786a11.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hell surfer (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Images of destruction

People are complaining that those images only represent the palestinian deaths. Please check the chart in the article to see why the images are more from the palestinian causulties. the number of civilian deaths in gaza far outnumbers the number in israel. however, anyone is most welcome to add images of civilian deaths in israel. I personally don't have any with a proper license. Any removal of those images without proper discussion will be reverted.Contrieng (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Alleged violations of international law

It shouldn't have more from a pro-attack Israeli think tank than from the United Nations special Rapporteur. The material should be a short summary after a fuller statement of what Falk says. This is just extremely WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. (And I see it's being reverted already.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please can the repeated removal of Falk's quoted statement stop. It's an important statement by the UNHRC on the situation. 125.27.27.190 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've hit my revert limit here. Feel free to change second section back to something like this, and directly below, slightly improved - just make sure ref is properly formatted:

The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response." Weiner and Bell concur and also call the rocket attacks "terrorist in nature." CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have put the direct quote of the UN statement back.

"severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war."

If anyone thinks there is a reason why this important UN statement should not be directly quoted please discuss it here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Falk's full quotation deserves to be in there. But please don't bullet what he has to say. That just takes up space unnecessarily. Also, it isn't enough to say Bell and Weiner counter his points; their arguments must be mentioned. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to directly quote Falk. We should briefly summarize him. Similarly, we should very briefly summarize Bell and Weiner, or whoever else we ues in the section.VR _talk 19:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just put a POV tag on the section, it's getting so bad. Perhaps some consensus agreements?

1. What Falk says should be correctly reflected, which is not currently true; deleting what he says and replacing it with long rationales for Israel's actions unacceptably POV and can lead to sanctions against the editor under the Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles
2. If the Israel govt has countered anything UN charges that should have higher priority than Israel's Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs writers
3. A couple sentences listing Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs analysis is acceptable; with all the back and forth editing I just did a quicky shorty myself. But it's actual length should not be MORE than what Falk/UN said on this.
4. If Israeli's can come up with legal rationales for Israel's actions, any WP:RS citing the most credible Palestinian legal arguments for rocket attacks also can be used, should such exist.

Hmm. I wondering if anyone's keep track of possible 3rrs in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree with you, Carolmooredc. But when are his words replaced with Israeli rationale?
2. Again, I agree with you, but until such time as responses from the Israeli government are found, there can't be any wrongdoing in not using them.
3. In the "Israel" section, Falk's position is expounded in 167 words (1108 characters), whereas Weiner's and Bell's is expounded in 139 words (923 character). So in this section, they're quite balanced. In the "Palestinian militants" section, they do not need to be balanced (a) because the two sources are in agreement, and (b) because the authority of the Special Rapporteur is to oversee violations of human rights by Israel in the occupied territories, and he has no authority whatsoever to comment on the acts of Palestinian militants. Of course, this also means he has no authority to write about the no-longer-occupied Gaza, but that didn't stop him.
4. If you can find a RS that defends the legality Hamas rocket fire, then add it. I can't find one, and I doubt there is one, because the rocket fire from Gaza is in blatant violation of international law. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be mentioned that Gary Grant, a barrister specializing in international law, expressed his legal opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense in his interview on English Al Jazeera. Here is link for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMjSoUEysQ4
01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs)

No, please let's not get too detailed with this barrister here, that barrister there etc. It's a minefield. Keep it simple, the UN and the Israeli positions. And the statement is an official UN statement not merely the opinion of a lawyer. Any attempt too detract from that and try to frame it as if it's just Falk being Falk etc is very likely to be politically motivated and therefore has no place here.

I bulleted the points for reasons of clarity. This is an encyclopedia after all. I don't have strong views on whether to bullet or not to bullet but whatever we do can we please make sure that all 3 points are retained and that the links to the relevant Wiki articles explaining those terms are retained ? We mustn't water down what the UN said and we mustn't distort/interpret the exact words the UN used. They are significant. Rewriting them will inevitably result in people breaking WP rules because they just don't like the words used. We just can't have that. For example, the Occupying Power term will vanish simply because some people don't like it or they think it's wrong which is of course neither here nor there. The full quote is the simplest and safest approach as far as I'm concerned.

I think the part of Falk's statement shown below in the Palestinian militants section isn't really necessary as it's restating points already covered. It's enough that the UN explicitly state that the rocket attacks are in their view, against international law. That is a crucial point of course and we mustn't lose that.

"...But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right […] to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."[310]

Let's not count words. Statements by the UNHRC have orders of magnitude more weight than Weiner's and Bell for an encyclopedia. I don't think it really merits lengthy discussion but we must have something there that summarises the official Israeli position on these kind of statements with a ref so that people can get further details. I thought the sentence that was there before that mentioned point be point countering was fine.

Saepe, can you quit the legal/authority interpretations please. :) Gaza is occupied as far as the UN (and pretty much everyone else) is concerned and Israel's obligations follow from that according to the statements/sources. It would be much better if we could link the Occupying Power term in the UN statement to a good Wiki article spelling out why Israel thinks this term is nonsense. Maybe it's somewhere in the Gaza Strip article. I haven't looked but we must have something in the IDF section to counter the UN statement or else people will get all worked up about the words the UN used, forget that this is an encyclopedia and not a battleground in a propaganda war and trash the section ignoring WP guidelines on undue weight, fringe theories, soapboxing etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion that Israel's Actions in Gaza are an Act of Self Defense and within international law framework rights is not expressed. As a matter of fact Self-Defense as a legal term is missing entirely from this article. Gary Grant opinion quote in violations of international law section would reflect this point of view to situation in hand.
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you but I just wish it was an official statement from the Israeli administration. They must have said something..anyone up for looking for that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Israel's action represent "a legitimate right to self-defense" http://www.wowowow.com/post/tzipi-livni-defends-attacks-legitimate-right-self-defense-bloomberg-ehud-barak166622

Here is an analysis by Dr. Avi Bell which is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2021&TTL=International_Law_and_Gaza:_The_Assault_on_Israel

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Before this edit, the weight given to each POV was about 50%-50%. Some editors seem to think this is undue weight, given Falk's position as UN Rapporteur. I disagree with this, but that's inconsequential right now. there should be no question that the 100%-0% distribution currently used is undue weight in the reverse direction.

I don't really care whether the distribution is 50%-50% or 70%-30%. But, given that every point that Falk makes is refuted by Weiner and Bell, it is important that all of their refutations be mentioned. If Falk's argument is represented without their counter-argument, that is showing a POV.

Let's not forget that we're not dealing with two quacks out of nowhere. These are people with esteemed credentials, who make their arguments based on international law, precedent and very sound logic.

As for the position that Gaza is occupied territory, I think this shows the POV of the UN. Think about it: how can a country invade territory that it occupies? But I digress. WP policy tells us that "all sources have biases," but we must combine them in such a way that all POV's are represented. So the argument that Weiner and Bell are biased cannot stand, because their POV must be represented, too.

Right now, I'm tired of back-and-forth edits on this section. I'll await comment (or prolonged lack thereof) before moving forward on giving due weight to Weiner and Bell. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If Weiner/Bell from Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs can be used to excuse Israel's attacks then the two WP:RS that describe Hamas' rationale of self-defense I found can be used. And, again, more than a couple sentence summary of Weiner/Bell remains WP:Undue. So going in soon to make relevant changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I must have missed the two sources. Could you post them here please? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I've changed the section to conform with your suggestions as well as I could. Though I think Weiner and Bell are not being given due weight, let's work on first getting a version we can agree on as a springboard, and take it from there. What are your thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Carol. And in a ideal world, journalistic standards like WP:UNDUE would apply. In practice, however, wikipedia, like everything else, is governed by political realities, which means that Weiner and Bell's hugely overblown charges stay, standards notwithstanding. The bright side is that the ammunition provided by Weiner and Bell fires both ways: If every homemade rocket fired by Hamas is a "war crime", as W/B claim, then the same is true of every missile, every bomb, every shell and every bullet fired by Israel over the last sixty years. All that prevents us from noticing this is the pro-Israel double-standard, and that will collapse as the mountain of corpses in Gaza grows larger. NonZionist (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Introducing such obviously and blatantly biased material and then using it as a point-by-point retort against a United Nations official and expert brings shame upon Wikipedia and its credibility. The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations, not yet another place for "A says X about B and B's entirely unimportant friends say A is wrong because of Y". WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE WP:UNDUE and WP:UNDUE yet again. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan, thank you for your devotion to improving this section. I can sort of understand why you don't want to give equal weight to Falk and the Jerusalem lawyers, but please refrain from giving no weight to the Jerusalem lawyers. Surely, we can agree that they deserve some weight. How much they deserve will be the subject of much argument, I suspect.

I agree with you that "The purpose of this section is to bring forth notable accusations," but to this I would add that another purpose is to discuss counter-arguments to these accusations. Surely, not all accusations are true, and the opposing viewpoint must be considered.

You call Weiner and Bell's work "obviously and blatantly biased." What's your reason for this? These are experts on the subject, and this is an official publication. The authors make solid use of international law, logic and precedent. You cannot simply dismiss them as "B's entirely unimportant friends" without any sort of evidence to this effect. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Weiner and Bell have the entire opposite section for themselves, without any kind of retort, which is why I do not believe they need even more space in the other section.

However I'll retreat from this argument since the subject isn't my forte. Happy editing, — Jan Hofmann (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy editing to you, too. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jan Hoffman that inluding reference to the legal stuff on the Jerusalem website is a clear deviation from normal policy on sources (WP:UNDUE). I have tried to remove it a few times, but in the eyes of the supporters of Israel here this seems to be a reliable source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, thank you for your contributions to this important section.

Weiner and Bell both have strong credentials to write this publication (you can refer to their bios at the bottom of it, if you would like). This is clearly a WP:RS. Also important to note is this: the opinion that Israel violated international law is amply represented in the article; it would violate WP:NPOV not to present the opposite opinion, when such an opinion makes a strong appearance in reputable sources.

I agree with you that Weiner and Bell are over-represented in the "By Palestinian militants" section, and I'm working to remedy that. But under-representing them in the "By the Israeli Defense Forces" section doesn't cancel that out. Two wrongs don't make a right. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so I was bold: I went ahead and removed all references to Weiner and Bell in the "By Palestinian militants" section. I expect that this will move us closer to consensus. I moved the BBC article that was already there, so that it replaced some of the material for which they were quoted. Most of the rest I brought from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I went ahead and deleted the genocide argument altogether, since I couldn't find another WP:RS that expounded it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That improves it a bit. The excessive quoteing of Weiner/Bell was giving the impression that they are an impartial source on this issue. Fig (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an impartial source. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law

Someone snuck in the title "Potential" Violations of International law which is not accurate and POV since obviously Israel's violations are worst, since they are the occupying power which isn't supposed to do massive military invasions of occupied territory. The definition in first paragraph also may be questionable and needs a look see. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed back to "Alleged," though for a different reason. "Potential" seems to imply that they could happen, whereas "alleged" implies there's a claim that they've already happened.

As for the first paragraph, I think it's fine, except in that it may be too vague. For example, what does it mean that they have to be "proportional"? But it is definitely necessary if these terms of international law are going to be used farther down in the section. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Alleged" Violations of International Law 2. This time it's personal. "Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water..."

Okay, my reasoned comment on the amendments that have taken place is DO'H! Maybe it would be better to combine the 2 sections (in a possibly futile attempt) to give the UN the weight they deserve speaking on behalf of the world community (to a first approximation) while still maintaining some...but much less...of the opposing views. We need the links put back to the appropriate _(law) articles I guess too.Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I understand your concern. Let me attempt to tackle your points in order:

1. Combining the two sections - This wouldn't do much good. This wouldn't actually give the UN any more weight, but simply make it appear that way. And it would jumble the section up.

I proposed this to reduce the opportunity for the repetition of counter arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Representing the UN more and the Jerusalem attorneys less - I'm down with that in the "By Palestinian militants" section. The caveat is that we need to find another source that explains why Hamas rocket fire violates international law. I doubt we can find such a source published by the UN. The UN has a position in charge of overseeing violations of human rights by Israel (i.e. Falk), but there is no counterpart who's responsible for doing the same in Palestine. Thus, the UN has no body that is responsible for issuing a document that could be quoted in this section.
2. Re-establishing the links - The links are operative in the introduction.

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Given that I put them there I think that confirms what I have suspected for some time, namely that I'm an idiot. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All commentary, in agreement or in disagreement, on international law, should be listed as separate sections and not as point-counterpoint. Plus if/when more get added it will become extremely confusing to readers - the people we are doing this for. Only NPOV way to do it. Finally working on it now.

Also getting better understanding of "occupation" status since one WP:RS says as of 2005 it was disputed and only so far I've found Israeli sources saying it is not occupied - but need more update fact/opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of dividing this section by "for" and "against," how would you feel about separating it by argument. It flows better than way. I do agree, though, that it should be better organized. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to mention again that I suggested to lose this section altogether. The section does not describe facts, but only opinions on how facts should be interpreted. Hence, untill there is a valid court rulling on the issue (such as in the case of the West Bank Barrier) we should refrain from mentioning it, since all that is going to happen, is excatly what is happening now: editing battles, which in no way will crystallise to a consensus. So far there have been arguments (not discussions, arguments)on which intrepretation is relevant, is the date it was given relevant, which parts of international law should or shouldn't we include, the number of characters describing each side stance, and my favorite: who is a "notable commentator". Now it has become a "personal" issue. I rest my case! --Omrim (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think things are getting better, and we are all getting closer day be day to consensus. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First, let's not take things too personally on Wikipedia.

Also note in my changes to Weiner/Bell that it is wp:original research to use "principle of distinction" both to change Falks words of "targeting civilians" and to use that phrase instead of targeting civilians. (It could be mentioned that they call targeting civilians "principle of distinction" - but frankly, if I were to actually read their page it might turn out that that is a misreading of what they mean by the original editor.

Re: Hamas, it is encyclopedic and relevant to include their rational for their relatively puny rocket attacks; obviously if something more up to date is found it should be added or replace more dated material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrin, I think the key issue is, is it significant enough for this article. I think the reasonable answer is yes. That being the case we need to try hard to reach a consensus suitable for an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== Fellows, I'm nor a wikipedia abbreviations expert and do not have enough rights to change the article yet. I'm not neutral and my English and fix it if you like. I have couple suggestions for changes. Please help!

	Type	Change	References
1	Addition	After "not intended to cause excessive civilian damage, even if Israel erred in its estimates." to add something like following: Independent barrister Gary Grant specializing in international law explained on Al Jazeera English about Gaza Raids toll: "Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens, it's called self-defence.". Gary Grant noted on proportionate to the military objective trying to be achieved: "... Hamas is an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant. ... If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart, before I'm about to respond. I'm allowed to take pre-emptive action, in order to stop it."	[1] [2]
2	Deletion.	Please delete The UNHRC statement by Falk "the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right". It is far from being a legal fact and indeed it's is state duty: please see independent legal expert opinion @ change 1.	This time it is personal

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, only looked through edit summaries and should have come here first. The Grant quote is relevant though frankly more high profile opinions might replace it. As for Falk, this is what he said in the UN Statement; if there's going to be a section on Hamas violations of international law, what he says is relevant. Also, "this time it is personal" is really an uncivil comment and those who put it in should take it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, to clarify, actually my initial 'this time it's personal' in the subheading was a reference to the movie Jaws 3 since the subheadings seemed to be turning into movie titles. These are very serious matters but I'm not happy with how the conflict appears to be be spilling over to Wikipedia hence the unsuccessful attempt to bring a little bit of satiric relief. Call it me try to maintain civility. No offence intended. We need to work togather despite our differences. Everyone working in this section seem to be doing quite well at maintaining civility. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Sean, I thought your title was funny (and punny). Yay Wikilove!

Now, let's get down to business. Consider this paragraph:

Independent barrister Gary Grant specializing in international law explained on Al Jazeera English about raids toll: "Any country's first duty is to protect its citizens, it's called Self-Defense.". Gary Grant noted on proportionality to the military objective trying to be achieved: "... Hamas is an organisation intent on the destruction of Israel and the Jews in Israel as part of its covenant. ... If someone were to run at me, a knife-wielding lunatic, I don't have to wait for that knife to enter my heart, before I'm about to respond. I'm allowed to take preemptive action, in order to stop it."

I see several problems with using Grant's interview as a reference: (1) it comes from an on-the-spot opinion, not from any demi-legal publication; (2) I'm not sure Gary Grant qualifies as a WP:RS; and (3) even if this opinion is to be included, there's no need for the last few sentences, as they are completely superfluous.

Also, consider this paragraph:

President Mahmoud Abbas stated he was considering taking Israel to international courts after Israeli tank shells killed 42 Palestinians seeking shelter in a U.N. school. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said in a statement "This is a brutal crime and a clear war crime, along with other attacks, and its perpetrators must not escape an international trial." Raji Sourani, head of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) in Gaza stated that "The repeated bombing of clearly marked civilian buildings, where civilians were sheltering, crosses several red lines in regard to international law."

The only sentence that gives any insight into why Israeli attacks might have violated international law is the last, and even that is already mentioned under Falk. The first two don't really contribute anything. I therefore (no surprise here) suggest removing the references to Abbas and the OIC, and possibly the PCHR. If PCHR stays, then we must add the Israeli legal defense that mortars were fired from the school. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's consider this paragraph:

UN Permanent Representative Dumisani Kumalo, representing South Africa in the 6060th UN Security Council meeting, stated that his country considers "the Israeli airstrikes using the most sophisticated war machinery, such as the F-16 planes, are a violation of the international humanitarian law". In the same meeting, the Egyptian representative stated that the "crippling blockade imposed by Israel" is in "flagrant violation" of Israel's responsibilities under international law, international humanitarian law and its specific obligations as an "occupying power". In a subsequent meeting, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Jordan stated that "the military operations were a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention".

I have three objections to this entire paragraph: (1) All three quotations say that Israel is violating international law, but don't say why. (2) The sources cited are certainly notable. However, these are speeches that are intended to summarize legal positions made by other sources; they are not independent legal opinions. (3) The aforementioned legal opinions are already in this section, and restating them would be fruitless. Personally, I think they should be removed altogether. But as an interim solution, I propose that a single (short) sentence replace this entire paragraph--something to the effect of "South Africa, Egypt and Jordan all denounced the legality of Israel's actions on the floor of the Security Council."

Now, let's consider this paragraph:

After finding four starving children sitting next to the corpses of their dead mothers among others in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement expressing its belief that Israel had breached international humanitarian law: "The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable."

This simply repeats what Falk says, and so probably doesn't need to be included. To make matters worse, this discusses a single incident, whereas Falk's statement covers the whole war. If we looked at the war incident by incident, there would be no end to it. If other editors do want to keep it, let's cut it significantly.

I know this was one really long post, but please let me know what you think, so that we can move forward on cutting this section, because it's way too long. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Charts for numbers of dead and wounded

File:Gaza-Israel war deaths.png

I will hopefully update this chart daily, or more frequently. The chart may be useful somewhere in the article. I will let others decide about sizing and placement. Click the chart to see the largest size.

I list my current data sources on the image page. Please leave later data sources on the image talk page:

• commons:File talk:Gaza-Israel war deaths.png

I hope to create a chart for the number of wounded too. I need a mainstream news source for the number of Israeli wounded. I may create a chart for both the dead and the wounded, too.

Feel free to create other charts and upload them with new names. I use this online charting site:

• http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph

The category is:

• commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Add it in the casualties section.VR _talk 17:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Superb. I wholly commend the inclusion.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a chart is really necessary when there are only 2 data points. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the chart is excellent. It neatly sums up the most important issue in this conflict.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If only two data points is the primary objection, respective casualties could be added giving four. We could also use a linear timeline graph to show casualities by day.Chikamatsu (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point? We have the numbers. This graphs adds nothing, and is nothing but a way to imply to the reader - "look, the Palestinians have so many more dead, they must be the poor, righteous side here." Why don't we add a graphs of all of Hamas's rockets attacks every day? About percentage of civilian targets hit by both sides (Oh, Hamas would look just great in that. Despite having multiple army bases within range of its rockets, it always chooses to fire at the civilian population, instead of, say, Airforce bases). Oh, we can have such fun with these graphs! okedem (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you need to go read WP:AGF. Discussion gets nowhere when we assume bad faith. We add a percentage of civilians killed on both sides, except the Palestinian numbers aren't really clear (its about 150-200 out of 537). Also there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not.VR _talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

VR, I know when to AGF, though your concern is certainly appropriate.

"there is no real way of quantifying what is in Hamas' range, and what is not." - What kind of strange claim is that? We know for certain that Hamas can hit targets at least as far as 40 km away, since their rockets hit Beersheba, which is 40 km away. We also know that there are many army bases within that range. For instance, the Air-force alone has two bases closer than that, Hatzor and Hatzerim, maybe even a third one, Tel-Nof (see map on IAF website). okedem (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Okedem. Graphs are supposed to be used to represent data that are difficult to process without visual aid. Comparing 5 to 507 doesn't qualify. It would detract from the serious nature of the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another map of rocket range: [3]. And then you could graph this: No. of wounded in attacks from Gaza more than doubled in '08 --"Shootings, stabbings, rocket and missile fire, and a bulldozer attack by Palestinian and Arab terrorists killed 36 Israelis and tourists in Israel in 2008, compared to 12 in 2007 and 29 in 2006, according to a report by Hatzalah Judea and Samaria released over the weekend. Jerusalem Post [4]] Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is, most I/P articles have this kind of chart, as it sums up a swathe of data in an instant. It has yet to include a graph of the wounded, but I've no doubt Timeshifter will look to that. I see an official figure of 537 dead so far, so it needs to be adjusted. If you want to add a graph for Hamas rocket launches over the period, add one. But it is already available at List of Qassam rocket attacks. Do you object to that page's use of a graph? Nishidani (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the latest numbers? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a chart of rocket attacks by day. If you provide me the numbers I will make it when I get a chance. Or someone else can. I am pretty busy. I think I heard on NPR that there have been thousands of rocket attacks in the last year. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you should also graph the number of Palestinians being killed by the Israeli raids and bombing runs, since the rocket attacks were retaliation for these attacks by Israel. The chart should cover at least the last six months, since Israel has been planning this assault for at least that long. We would see that the number of rocket attacks declined greatly when Israel finally accepted Hamas's call for a truce. Here are samples: Comparison: Children killed ... Numerous comparisons: casualties, demolitions, tax dollars, etc.. ... Comparison: Casualties by year The latter site also graphs casualties day by day, so that we can see just who is driving the cycle of action and reaction. NonZionist (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Suggestion: why don't we add a line graph charting the number of casualties day to day of the conflict? We could also start the conflict from December 19, when Hamas intensified rocket attacks, as opposed to December 27.VR _talk 18:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The 537 is the Palestinian reckoning, widely reported, so I suppose we shall have to wait for a more independent source. As to graphs, we need a timeline. Not from an arbitrary date. What is desperately needed here is a timeline of attacks over the period of the truce or lull. Hamas argues, exactly as Israel, that its attacks are timed responsively to aggression from the other side, and we are obliged to be neutral here. Many sources place major emphasis on the November killing of 6 militants by the IDF as a key factor in the rocket surge. etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All that chart says is that the IDF has been more successful in its military actions. Namely, that it is winning the ground war. Also, I don't think a graph is needed to illustrate that. Hamas is taking disproportionate casualties... but that is not a moral victory but a strategic defeat. Consider wikipedia's article on the Easter Rising. Even though the long-term results of the battle was the success of Irish republicanism, it was still a defeat on the ground for the Republicans/Rebels. What the long term results of this battle/war/conflict is yet to be seen... as are the short term effects V. Joe (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The graph says nothing. It supplies data, and the reader interprets it according to his inclinations. You've taken it one way, Okedem another. The graph however says none of these things.Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a more recent number and updated the chart. The latest data source is linked on the image page. I also clarified the period covered in the chart title.--Timeshifter (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding the chart may be premature; we don't have consensus yet. Please tell me: what advantage does this graphic have over the information summarized in the summary table? I just don't see the benefit of this graphic, and I think it serves more to degrade the article than improve it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking at the chart below? It is a lot easier to get the basic overview from this chart than to wade through the old out-of-date info in the casualties section of the article. It is even easier to get the main numbers from this chart than to pull them out of the summary table in the infobox. The readers can read further there and in the casualties section to learn more. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed looking at the chart below. The solution to the first problem you mention is to streamline the casualties section. But I must dispute the claim that it is easier to read the graphic than the infobox. The graphic doesn't make sense to my eyes, but maybe that's just because one does not often see such graphics. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one in Second Intifada in the Casualties section there. Others seem to appreciate this chart here. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? It seems like I'm the minority. Let's move on to the next subject of controversy... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chart for both dead and wounded

File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png

I found some more numbers for Israeli wounded, and this allowed me to make this chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is looking better than the terrible two-bar chart, but it also needs to show what day/time the statistics ended at. Leaving the original chart on the article hoping that the correctly dated chart comes along soon. ;) FFLaguna (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I added the end date to the title of the chart. You may have to purge the page or cache to see it. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps -Timeshifter, in an effort to be NPOV, will include these numbers in his chart:

• The organization, which provides rapid response first aid in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza border area, also reported a sharp rise in the number of injuries by Kassam rockets, Grads and mortar fire compared to the past two years.
• These attacks on Jewish settlements within firing range of Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, wounded 947 in 2008. A total of 464 were wounded in 2007 and 227 in 2006.
• A total of 1,683 Kassam rockets fell in Israel near Gaza and another 108 shot from Gaza fell back into Palestinian areas.
• In Israel, eight people were killed in 2008 by rocket attacks, 19 were killed in shootings, one person was stabbed to death, one was killed in a suicide bombing, one in a bulldozer attack, and an additional eight soldiers were killed in battle. Jerusalem Post[5] Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support or oppose chart inclusion

Comment. I am trying to figure out what needs to be improved (if anything) concerning this chart to the right. So please say whether you support or oppose its inclusion in the right side of the casualties section of the article. See Second Intifada#Casualties and its subsection Second Intifada#Combatant versus noncombatant deaths for an example of another casualties chart in a related article. Also, please make suggestions for improvement of this chart. Feel free to comment with your support or oppose opinion. Or just make a "Comment". --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It is a quick way for readers to see the main points about casualties; the numbers of dead and wounded on all sides. It also lists the sources on the bottom of the chart (which are changed as the chart is updated from various sources). It is instant updating for returning readers. I am wondering if I should add a breakdown for civilians/combatants/unknown as at Second Intifada#Casualties? --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting section regarding casualty reporting. The details I mention need to be included somewhere. Where are you suggesting posting the chart and are you suggesting removing the infobox? If you want to replace the infobox and other wikipedians agree with the change you might provide a detailed subscript to the chart along the format I suggested. - Thrylos000 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove the infobox. I want to put the chart here: 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. As the talk section you mentioned noted it would be difficult to decide on a number of civilians killed. That is not good to put in the chart in my opinion. That requires a subsection of the article. Please see this Jan 5 2009 BBC article also: "Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm --Timeshifter (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I support its placement in the casualties section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment would you be able to draw a chart documenting casualties on a daily basis? Do you need help in gathering such sources (because I may be able to help you).VR _talk 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will be updating daily, or more often. Please see commons:File talk:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png about sources, and #At least a quarter are civilians. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard sources are easily accessible and I mention them in my extended criticism of casualty accounting in the section At least a quarter are civilians. I ask that everyone refer to that discussion first before considering the proposal to include a chart as it is highly relevant and I do not think I need to repost in this section. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Support. Very helpful for those skimming the article. I would leave it as it is and not overcomplicate it, especially while more detailed information such as breakdown of civilians vs combatant casualties is still unreliable.--Chikamatsu (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support The graph is a very clear and fair represintation of the facts, as long as it is kept to date. This would be a great addition. MathewDill (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with MathewDill, but it is a bit brief. To make it more relevant, more information should be added (but not too much). Things such as comparison between different sources or causes of death. Maxipuchi (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - As long as the data for the chart remains fairly recent and well sourced throughout its use, I see no problem with it. It certainly makes it easier for the casual viewer. SwedishPsycho (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. If it weren't such a dead-serious subject the 1:100 relation in kills were really enough to be funny. Not to mention 1:10 in wounded. I realised this before, so I won't use it as an argument. To either side. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The chart would be somewhat relevant (if people look at this like score-keeping) if they were both only firing missiles at each other. Now that Israeli troops are operating in Gaza, but not vice versa, the civilian deaths will obviously be significantly higher on the Palestinian side then the Israeli side. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the casualties are going to be unbalanced during a one-sided incursion. Per your argument we shouldn't have casualty numbers in the article at all. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this score-keeping is silly. They're both fighting two different types of wars. The chart is a way of dumbing down the whole issue for people who choose sides based on who is winning the dead-civilian count. That being said, we obviously can't stop people from adding the civilian count to the article, but we can focus the article on more important and relevant aspects of conflict. If we're gonna add graphs and charts to the article we should focus on other aspects. A better idea for a chart that comes to mind, is a chart of the number of missiles fired by both Hamas and Israel prior to December 23. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A timeline chart of violent actions by both sides during the preceding months would be a good idea, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike myself, you're obviously a competent "chart-maker." So why don't you go ahead and make said chart. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am an amateur. I use this online tool: http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/createagraph

The hard part is finding the data. If you can layout a timeline with dates and numbers of rockets you or I could plug it in to one of the chart formats there maybe. No guarantees. I am fairly busy. There are more tools here:

commons:Commons:Chart and graph resources --Timeshifter (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess List of Qassam rocket attacks would be a good start for the data. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support. The chart doesn't complicate things with the diversionary "civilian" issue -- though CNN (Anderson Cooper) just reported that 100% of the people being killed now are "civilians".

In answer to Jan Hofmann, the kill ratio prior to the Israeli invasion was FORTY-to-one. E.g.: "Israeli soldiers killed twice as many Palestinians last week alone -- both of them children -- as the number of Israelis killed by Hamas all last year." -- "Israel's shooting of young girl highlights international hypocrisy, say Palestinians", 30 Jan 2006. Now, it's a hundred to one. So the high number of Palestinians being murdered cannot be explained away simply by the current invasion. Israel has been operating in Gaza all along, raiding, bombing, shelling, starving the populace. What happened on Dec 27 was merely an ESCALATION in an existing Israeli presence.

I looked at List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 earlier today, and I was amazed by how FEW rockets were fired during the truce period -- and some of those were launched by Fatah, which has been known to collaborate with Israel. Obviously, these ineffectual rockets are being used merely as a pretext for a long-planned genocidal assault, and Hamas has been set up. Here are two articles that present the WHOLE story: Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza", 05 Jan 2009 and Raimondo, "Rationalizing Gaza", 05 Jan 2009. NonZionist (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

genocidal assault??? Israel has killed 600 Palestinians in 11 days. Based on this calculation it should only take them 800 years or so to complete this 'genocide' of Palestinians living in Gaza. I guess those Israelis are not very effective in commiting genocide... especially seeing how they've been planning this for so long...lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.182.192 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Genocidal" refers to the nature of the operation and the deranged and ultimately self-destructive attitudes that motivate it. It implies that a country is heading TOWARDS genocide, not that genocide has been completed. My use of the term is admonitory, not derogatory: I believe that massively violent attacks on ethnic groups are a path to a dead-end, and I do not wish to see Israel proceed further along this self-defeating self-destructive path. I seek to save Israel from itself. Those who have "no problem" with genocidal behavior are not true friends of Israel. NonZionist (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to call this genocide than at least have the costistancy to admit that this would render almost all military action ever witnessed 'genocidal'. Are the Israeli Defense Forces casuing more civilian casualties in their attacks than the so-called 'allies' in Serbia in 1995 or 1999? More than in the 2003 invasion into Iraq? Is the nature of Israel's attack more 'deranged' and more 'violent' than in these? Or were these simply also genocidal attacks. Why don't you Tell the truth: you disapprove of this military operation because you oppose Israel on ideological grounds as being 'zionist' or 'racist' or whatever. This is a legitimate position. However, your position does not rest on the way on Israel's operation is being conducted nor on any proof that Israel is attempting genocide.

• Support as a service for the lazy or mathematically inept readers. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support (yada, yada) actually mentions one reason in oposition. That it would be a little childish to stress score-keeping. But his second argument (which he intended to be in oposition) is a non-argument, since there is no reason to asume equal figures. The whole purpose of the table is showing the figures in an easy and intuitive way. Debresser (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak-Oppose This graph is better than the 2 data point version but I still think, as others have pointed out, that charting is for more complex data than this. Separation of figures for combatants and non-combatants would be much better. I would support it in that case. Nice work though. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Can someone besides me add the chart to the casualties section? 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict#Casualties. Here is the code to add to the top of that section:

[[File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png|thumb|300px]]

The chart will be on the top right side of the casualties section. Just like it is in this talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. How does the chart get updated? NonZionist (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support so long as someone can update this regularly through the duration of the conflict. Joshdboz (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. As I stated below (by mistake), there's not much that the graphical illustration of the numbers show that isn't already in the infobox. On top of that, the numbers will be constantly changing from day to day- does that mean a new picture every day? Seems unnecessary. Most importantly, if the graph is merely there to show the "disproportionate" nature of the casualties (I have my own opinions on that term, but I'll leave them to myself, unlike a few above me... remember this? WP:Soapbox), then it is undoubtedly not NPOV. Trying to say "See? Clearly Israel is targeting civilians etc etc." has no place in an encyclopaedia. Either way, it's redundant, unprofessional and difficult to maintain. I say it should be deleted ASAP. Jeztah (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Support. I don't even see any solid reasons to challenge this. As argued elsewhere, graphs like this, which cover both sides, give statistics, not a POV. Everyone may infer from the statistics whatever they like. Unlike the abusive qassam rocket graph tendentiously posted top of page, which is unilateral, and therefore violates NPOV, this graph covers both sides.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: I think the charge would be a mistake on both point-of-view grounds, (Namely: the purpose of it seems to be to make the Israelis the villains) and aesthetic grounds. Simply put, the chart would additional disrupt the flow of the article and would not clarify the obvious point that the Israelis are giving more casualties then they receive. V. Joe (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Casualty figures, while interesting, should not be given such a prominent place. This is simply an attempt to bias the reader against Israel, by highlighting a certain property above the rest (say, attacks on civilian communities, intended to kill civilians - Hamas's specialty). Right or wrong is not determined by who has more deaths. okedem (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

dont assume bad faith, nothings wrong with the chart and its reliable as long as updated.Lord Archivo (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Those voting oppose are assuming bad faith on the part of those who support this chart's inclusion, attributing all kinds of nefarious motives to that support. It's a simple visual, it includes the casualties sustained by both sides. That the casualty count is wholly unbalanced is a function of the reality on the ground and not POV reporting by wiki editors. Sorry, but the facts are the facts. Tiamut^talk 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weakly support - Only if it gets updated frequently (once a day or at most twice a day). Also, I would reformat to make it smaller. Arguments regarding POV in this case are not convincing: this is a visualization of undisputed facts - I do understand that people might see it as portraying Israel in a bad light, but there is not editorializing here, there are simply facts; that said neutrality is not best served by hiding a fact that sheds a bad light on one side by providing a due weigth voice to the explanation of the facts - same goes, for example, with the attacks on Mosques,which Israel sees as legitimate targets under the circumstances. Arguments on the prominence of the information are also unconvincing: we are encouraged by the MoS to provide visualization of data and images whenever possible. However, I am not strongly supporting the inclusion because I think these types of charts should be done after the conflict is over, when the fog of war lifts, and the figures can be stable. --Cerejota (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the emphasis of a certain aspect, over others. While the facts are not in dispute, this is akin to the question of what pictures we use, or how much we write about a specific subject. Visualization is another editorial question, and placing this graph is like placing a huge headline, saying - "There are many many more dead Palestinians than Israelis!". It's the same thing, only in different packaging. If we had a whole bunch of graphs, detailing attacks, etc - then maybe. But by itself - no. okedem (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear your point, but strongly disagree that a chart gives undue editorial emphasis, it simply visualizes data we already provide in an infobox. If these where being given priority over other data that could be visualized in this same manner, perhaps your point would be stronger, but I don't see any other data specific to this conflict that is being overlooked. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't provide our readers with the Operation Cast Lead name just because we do not know the name Hamas is giving to their operations: I am sorry, but while I might raise issues of wording etc, I will never oppose the inclusion of uncontrovertible facts nor their visualization whenever possible. However, I am not fully convinced this is the right time for this type of chart, so my support is weak.--Cerejota (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Aside from the fact that it is POV and meant to give an idiot-visual for people who can't read or think, the casualties have yet to be confirmed from a consistent RS. Mainly it doesn't reflect the title since the title is for 2008-2009. Thus it should include the dead and wounded from Gazan attacks for all of 2008-2009. Else rename Operation Cast Lead and start on December 27th. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional support. At first I was skeptical of this. However, as long as Timeshifter, or someone else can update this, the I think it's ok. I still think that at it would have been a good idea to chart casualties on a daily basis.VR _talk 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The chart says the data comes from the AP, the UN and Israeli government. What happens if there is a conflict between the numbers? I would want verification and reference for every data point on the chart. I would find it more than amazing if all three sources agreed on the numbers. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thus far the only disagreement is on the number of militants and civilians killed. As far as I know, the number of killed reported has been a factor of time only.VR _talk 05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment why isn't this an SVG chart? The data look simple enough for that. gringer (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've done that now (SVG version). The chart can now be edited quickly with a text editor to update numbers. I probably won't be updating this much myself to match the other graph, due to other commitments gringer (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel intelligence claims Hamas using hospitals and mosques

"Hamas operatives are in the hospital [Shifa] and have disguised themselves as nurses and doctors," one official said.

OC Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the cabinet that Hamas was using mosques, public institutions and private homes as ammunition stores. [6]

hmmm...perhaps that explains some hits on mosques as well as hospitals. Could Hamas militants be giving us their own casualty figures from inside hospitals? hmmm Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, please don't do things like this. There's too much chaos on the talk page and in the article already. It doesn't help. Stick to comments about the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Things like this? We have Israel supposedly attacking ambulances and that's big anti-Israel news. What if Hamas operatives, dressed as emergency personnel, (doctors and nurses) are using ambulances to transport weapons and rockets? It has been done before. Do I need to bring in references? Israeli intelligence told the Israeli cabinet. It is highly relevant. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 4th january report states the following:

""This morning, an ambulance of Al Awda hospital in the north was shelled, seriously injuring 4 medical staff""

So if you're going to say IDF said that and tat, clearly mention that the information is reported by the UN. The most accurate and neutral reporter in such matters. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 5th january report states the following:

"A paramedic working for the UHWC,an Oxfam-funded organisation, was killed when an Israeli shell struck an ambulance trying to evacuate an injured person in the Beit Lahiya area; another paramedic lost his foot and a driver was injured in the same incident." There are lots of similar facts on all those netural reports, without mentioning Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with all these huge number of IDF statements and 0 number of Hamas statements in the whole article. Things need be way more balanced up. I remember I've read many times Hamas saying that those are false Israeli claims. I'll search where I read them and put them beside this IDF quote to fairly balance matters --Darwish07 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on Sean's behalf, I don't think he realized your intention was to add the information into the article. I think he thought you were just stating it as a matter of fact. In any case, I do agree. This is something that should be added to the article. These tricks are old ones and I'm surprised it has yet to be mentioned in the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I read somewhere in the past 48hrs that the palestinian MOH gave Hamas a direct order not to use ambulances THIS TIME, as they are needed to evacuate the injured. This "exception" clearly demonstrates the rule...--Omrim (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apologies if I wasn't clear. I meant 'things like this' in the sense of statements that don't directly address proposed improvements to the article. I'm not challenging the importance of your information but I will say that information like this should be set in the context of what is required by both sides under international law/the rules of war or else people won't know what is and isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If its added it must be attributed to the Israeli government due it being very controversial. They were probably just paramedics killed by accident. No one really knows (yet) why they were killed or if they were allegedly Hamas militiamen in disguise, but we do know according to sources that "four paramedics were killed on their way to rescue injured civilians". Until we get a neutral source (not Hamas nor the Israeli government/military) this is what should be stated. You can't keep on accusing Hamas as basically being a terrorist group that uses human shields or disguises as paramedics, unless you want accusations of the IDF of being gruesome terrorists who kill entire families because they are personal point of views and not reliably sourced facts. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wih Al Ameer regarding attribution of the claims. Until reliable sources make these claims independently, the claims should be attributed to the Israeli government. However, there are reliable sources asserting that in the past Hamas has resorted to using Human shield's and similar schemes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the past, Israel has used human shields - in the West Bank city of Nablus during raids on houses and in other localities to deflect stone-throwers. We could do this all day (sorry if I'm getting carried away), but just because Hamas did in the past doesn't mean they're doing it now, especially since I think Gaza's hospitals need every ambulance they have and additional ones too. Omrim backs this by saying the Ministry of Health ordered Hamas not to use ambulances, but we need a source to verify this. Anyhow, this is all blabber. What Hamas has done in the past has no room in the timeline since its strictly about the current conflict. --04:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Al Ameer son (talk)

When the Israeli military goes on their raids they don't intend to kill, but to take prisoners (use them as bargaining chips or to get information). So there's a fundamental difference between using shields as a defensive mechanism and using shields to kill. But I agree with Al Ameer, this is all blabber. Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 6 January 2009 (UT=C)

You are editing now as an advocate for Israel. The Supreme Court of Israel has twice ruled that the IDF in ther past has consistently roped in Palestinians, especially adolescents, to use as shields in their urban warfare operations. Your first sentence mirrors exactly the language Hezbollah used in seizing IDF soldiers not to kill them but to use them as bargaining chips in 2006.Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is all inconsistent with this article goal. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Israelis "don't intend to kill" and have weapons that are a thousand times more precise than the primitive rockets available to Hamas and Hezbollah, why is it that Israel is killing forty to a hundred times as many people? The ratios for children killed are even worse. See: Gideon Levy, "Twilight Zone / The children of 5767", 28 Sep 2007 and Jan 2006 to June 2007: 172 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli child murdered and children killed, numbers, graphs. We don't need to rely on "blabber" (black propaganda): We have facts, tons of them, and these astonishing facts will not stay buried forever. NonZionist (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not refer to blogs, propaganda sites and opinion pieces when trying to work to accurate figures and improve this article. These are not reliable sources per WP. As Brewcrewer commented: "Past actions don't have a place here unless reliable sources or the Israeli government uses past actions as an analogy or comparison to current actions," or as per Darwish07: "inconsistent with this article goal." I urge you to review Wikipedia Reliable Sources. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz (the Gideon Levy article) is not a "blog". Anyway, please feel free to look up the figures yourself, Tundrabuggy, in whatever "reliable" (Israel-approved) source you wish. You will find the same 40-to-1 kill ratio I reported. I, for one, do not feel comfortable supporting such a slaughter. Killing all of these innocent people accomplishes absolutely nothing. NonZionist (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Levy writes mainly opinion and this opinion piece is over a year old. Wiki does not consider opinion pieces to be reliable for anything other than the author's opinion. Please try to keep focused on this (contemporary) article and try to avoid soapboxing. You might consider reviewing WP:NPOV. Thanks! Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of civilian casualties, several hundred, is about the population of a single Gaza apartment building. Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery, etc. But there are only several hundred civilians dead. With the number of strikes launched, had Israel wanted to kill civilians, there would be hundreds of thousand dead, not hundreds. okedem (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The dead has been scattered across several apartment buildings...you are correct...

I would remind people that 30% civilian dead (and I am not basing this on any RS) is still a "militant" ratio of 70%. I think that is a very restrained figure. What is the ratio for Hamas? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Children make up third of Gaza dead. Women make up about 15% of the dead. That means 45% of the Palestinian victims of this war are women and children. Surely some of the men killed were civilians too. Israel is killing more civilians than fighters, but assuming we restrict defining civilians to just women and children, it's about a 1:1 ratio. By way of contrast, Palestinian miltiants have killed 4 Israeli civilians and 7 soldiers, meaning their "militant"-civilian ratio is almost 2:1. 82.102.241.96 (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP, yes it is interesting what can be done with numbers. First of all, where are your numbers coming from? Are you just talking Operation Cast Lead or are we talking the last year or all the casualties inflicted by Hamas on Israelis? Your article from the Age references: "medics say". Maybe the numbers are correct and maybe not. Who knows? Also I would ask what constitutes a child? I have seen articles in which Palestinian "youths" were as old as 23. Certainly old enough to tote a gun. I am not of course claiming for one moment that there are no child casualties. Of course in such an operation there will be child casualties. I just doubt very much the factual accuracy of your claims or those of anonymous "medics". Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please discuss the Lead/Lede/Intro at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

---

Needs to be re-written. Nothing wrong with the content, but the grammer is quite poor to the opint of being unsuitable for wikipedia. I would re-write it myself, but admittedly, by english ain't that great either ;) and the article desrves something a little more polished. Just my 2 cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.61.95 (talk • contribs)

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

Wounded Israelis

Does "shock" count as being wounded? Surely not. I think the figure in the infobox needs to be clarified because I doubt 119 Israelis were physically injured by Hamas rockets. I could be wrong. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this criticism as I've seen accounts of "light wounds" and "slight injuries" as well a shock being reported. I'm uncomfortable with the injury accounting in South Israel and this number of 119 injured which derives directly from Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Their reports are extremely lacking in detail and I've not seen them differentiate the injured at all (into critical, light, shock etc). As of now I can only say that the number probably includes many light injuries and possibly "shock victims" due to past accounting practices in this conflict (I think the BBC has made a point of referring to some of the injuries as light or slight). As it stands though there is no basis to change this number. Someone would have to find a reliable source differentiating the injury victims. I think its a significant issue becuase very few if any of the Israeli injuries will turn into deaths given the fact that most that have been reported with any detail have not been severe and the fact that South Israel has an intact medical system. Obviously neither applies in the case of Gaza.

Thrylos000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

I actually tried really hard yesterday, but I couldn't find a single source reporting the total number of Israeli wounded.VR _talk 05:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of recent accounting practices of the Israel Ministry of foreing affairs (from the 2006 war with Hizbullah):

"Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."

Only 101 people were wounded moderately or severely (2.4% of the total figure!) while 65% of the "injured" were victims of shock and anxiety. Unfortunately, the MFA has not provided a similar breakdown for the injuries in the current conflict. They are only reporting an undifferentiated count of injuries, currently totalling 119: "Since December 27, 480 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. 900,000 Israeli residents are under immediate threat. Three Israeli civilians have been killed and 119 wounded (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA)."

Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that those Israeli injuries seriousness are .0001 of the Palestinian ones dangers, but it's not my job to say this statement in here anyway :) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the 3 sources cited for the 119 injuries and, though I may have overlooked something, I couldn't find any support for the figure. So I have removed 119 for the time being and changed civilian casualties to ~10 which is just until someone can find a definitive figure. I can't expect there are many injuries, from what I've heard most of the rockets have missed.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw the figure there. The google cached version shows it.[7] Maybe the moved it or revised it.VR _talk 09:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone has put the 120 figure back in, citing the israeli govt. I won't remove it in case i'm being blind but i've looked through the page and can't find the 120 figure in it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Many of you have raised valid considerations. It does seem to be Israeli policy to bring in shock-victims to hospitals. Frankly, I suppose having a sudden rocket explode next to you, deafening you, destroying your car/house/surroundings, and possibly killing your dog/friend/husband may be a little shocking. I wouldn't wish it on any of you. This policy being as it is, I doubt it is feasible to not include shock victims in the count. Perhaps we should make separate mention that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians". Debresser (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Of course no one is suggesting, I don't think, that shock or other psychological trauma doesn't result from events during this conflict. The problem is however that no one is even going to try to estimate who has suffered "shock" in Gaza. If they included this categories, undifferentiated, in the injury counts in Gaza I would venture to say the number of injuried would be close to 1.5 M. :)

For the time being I am supportive of using the Israel MFA figure with a note saying that "shock-victims constitute a significant part of injured civilians" and perhaps linking to the example I mentioned above: "Since July 12, 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 were treated for shock and anxiety (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/Hizbullah+attack+in+northern+Israel+and+Israels+response+12-Jul-2006.htm)."

Thrylos000 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The 120 number I can find on the mfa.gov site is here (site dosnt work properly for me at least, you have to scroll way, way down) Now the figures are from the 4th — chandler — 11:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is probably not directly relevant but the Israel MFA is now reporting casualties of family pets on their website: "Jan 6: A 3-month-old baby girl was injured by shrapnel when a Grad rocket fired from north Gaza Tuesday morning exploded in the city of Gedera, between Ashdod and Rehovot. Twelve-year-old Shir was in a ground floor room in her home when the siren sounded. She ran to the shelter and was saved when the rocket struck the room she had just left. The family's dog Sili was killed by shrapnel in the yard. Since December 27, over 500 rockets and mortars have landed in Israel. Almost one million Israeli residents are under immediate threat."

Thrylos000 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The dog should be added to the number of Israeli casualties. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No.VR _talk 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. I'm contacting the Animal rights. Chesdovi (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chesdovi: the death of human beings, regardless of what side, shouldn't be for jokes. Please refrain from doing this again, it is in very bad taste. There are places for gallows humor, this isn't one of them. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. People are dying in hundreds and seriously injured in thousands with a severe humanitarian crisis and you're talking about fuckin pets. Ooh, We should really mention the sufferings of these cute pets, you heartless people! Damn --Darwish07 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reporting the death of a Dog, by name. The Israeli state is setting aside funds to help treat injured pets!!! Thrylos000 (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Threat to Wikipedia?

The State of Israel has deployed a world-class arsenal of fighter aircraft, attack helicopters, gunboats, tanks and troops against a densely-populated, impoverished and blockaded area small enough to cycle across in an afternoon.

And after ten days, close to 700 Gazans are dead and several thousand more are injured or maimed. Meanwhile on the Israeli side, maybe a dozen have died (about half from friendly fire).

Yet Wikipedia still won't call this event an "attack" or "assault" or "invasion," because a number of highly-committed editors are arguing every which way that it wouldn't be neutral to make Israeli look bad.

Instead, we've made Wikipedia look bad.

What is to be done? RomaC (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered building a concrete wall around Wikipedia, blockading it, occasionally carrying out random deletions of articles, cutting off power to the servers and so forth. I mean, what could possibly go wrong ? Seriously though, I don't know what to say. People are idiots and I include myself in that. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The mix of our idiocies is what build up Wikipedia ;-) --Darwish07 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

F***ING GENIUS DARWISH, F***ING GENIUS!!!--Cerejota (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you'd be an Internet Security company, or an ISP, and Wikipedia servers would have been used to DoS attack you... Then you'd talk to Wikipedia owners/admins and they'd respond with "MUWAHAHAHA! WE WILL DOS YOU UNTIL YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR SERVERS FARM! DIE!", I guess you'd take them down, no? Especially, when the Police can only tell them "We condemn your DOS attacks" ;) -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, there are about 550 deaths, not "close to 700". That's a big difference. And Israel attacked/assaulted Hamas, who are hiding in Gaza's residential areas, thus so many civilian deaths. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very wrong, even if Hamas and BBC consider it so. Invasion, perhaps, but it's a tempporary thing because IDF doesn't plan to stay in Gaza after the operation (and everybody said it MANY times over and over again), so you could say that Israel invaded Gaza to "deal with Hamas", but you can't really call this war/operation as an Invasion. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is an Israeli attack on Hamas and not Gaza. Just today 20 potential members of Hamas were killed, yes they were children, but let's face it they could become Hamas members.*sarcasm intended* the facts are civilians area have been hit, the civilian casualties make up a significant portion of the death toll, the Israelis have invaded the area. So if it talks like a duck, walks and quacks like one, then it is one. So saying Israel attacked/assaulted Gaza seems to me very accurate. --Learsi si natas (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(my ORIGINAL RESEARCH and BIAS not related to article). I'll tell you a funny fact by the way, ofcourse I'm biased but as mentioned I'm not saying this for the sake of the main article at all. The IDF and the Israeli media really love to make a distinction between Hamas and "non-Hamas", but here's the catch that the Israeli Intelligence knows very well. All people on Gaza support Hamas cause it's the one (on the opposite of Fatah) which calls for opposition against the "occupying force". We were not really originally from Gaza, we were withdrawn by force from the land that's above Gaza (Ashdood, Asklan, ..) in the 1948 war. So all the Gazans believe that Israel is an occupying force and what they are doing is legal opposition against an occupying force, whether this force is on Gaza or not. That's why every home helps Hamas over there and every one there prays for them. There's no difference between who's Hamas and who's not. And that's why Israel are doing all those killings and infrastructure destruction. It knows very well that she's not fighting Hamas, she's fighting 1.5 million population. And from here, and because all those wars, hatred over hatred continue. and sadly, here we are :-(. (End of ORIGINAL RESEARCH /) --Darwish07 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My response, unrelated to the articles as well, just stating my real honst opinion. Sorry mate, but this isn't "original research". That's the "common propaganda". Not all Gazans support Hamas. And the propaganda part is saying that Israel is targeting 1.5 mil population. Fatah used to fight Israel too, but looking at reality on the ground - the situation is that there is the Gaza strip (where there isn't any Israeli presence since 2005), there is the West Bank (where there are Israeli soldiers and police checkpoints and etc., for now, until we can pull out of there and a Palestinian state will be founded), and there is Israel. The 1967 borders (pretty much the same meaning as the 1949 Armistice Lines) are widely accepted as the sanest way to make this work for both of the peoples. Of course there are problems like Jerusalem and the "right of return", and both sides have both support and oposition on every issue. This can be solved by negotiations. And it will, when weapons will not be used against eachother. And I believe that many in Gaza know that too, and want that to happen. But for now, we have Hamas, who is terrorizing Israel, and Israel cannot let it happen. Of course there are controvercies about Israel's actions and Hamas' actions. Imagine what would happen if Israel was not imposing any kind of blockage on Gaza, and leaving the borders widely open? Hamas would get plenty of long-range missiles, Hamas will launch suicide bombers again, and etc. Yes, it might improve the living standards of the Gazans, but no sovereign country will accept improving the lives of a neighbouring area a little bit, in the cost of bloody terror against them. Imagine Burma attacking China. Burma would be flattened if it'd happen. Israel, on the other hand, tries to help the citizens. Before the military operation, Israel opened the border, and let supplies in, for several days. Hamas kept on firing. There is no peaceful solution against an organization who vows to kill you. Anyway, sorry for the offtopic. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, perhaps not everything you don't like is "a threat to Wikipedia"? Your comment is very dramatic, but doesn't mesh with the facts. Thus far Israel has performed hundreds of airstrikes, fired artillery shells, etc. How many civilians died? 200-300? That's the number of people living in a single Gaza-city apartment building. The very fact that Israel has carried out so many strikes, with so few civilian casualties, shows beyond doubt that Israel is making great efforts to avoid hurting civilians. In contrast, Hamas targets civilians. They can fire their rockets at military targets. Lots of those in range. They might get lucky and kill a soldier, hit an aircraft, or at least damage some runway. But no. They choose to kill civilians. The Palestinians elected Hamas, fully knowing that Hamas does not recognize Israel, the peace process, etc. Fully knowing that Hamas will continue its attacks on Israel. They do this even after Israel left Gaza, evacuated settlements, gave back the land. Palestinians chose to attack Israel and elect Hamas, instead of trying to continue the peace process. When civilians die, it's always a shame, be them Israeli or Palestinian. But this happens in war, and if Hamas (again, the folks Palestinians elected and support) hadn't fired, if they didn't hide in the middle of cities - none of this would have happened. So your pity drive doesn't impress me. And right or wrong have nothing to do with casualty figures. okedem (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The WAR started a long time ago, and there has not been an 'official' cease-fire or end to this war. You could call this a battle, or better yet, another Israeli military excurion into Palestinian territory. Calling it an invasion would mean the start of 'another' war, but this is the same war, and the latest action is an additional confrontation.

Please, we can't blame Israel for having the superior firepower, it should use it as it sees fit. Just like we can't blame Hamas/Palestine for defending itself as it sees fit. The best we can do is to continue updating the casualties, as many Iraq war objectors have been doing with US military deaths.

Also, i would like to know what Israeli military base is within reach of Hamas rockets.

And, would Israel allow Hamas to build 'official' military bases away from the population in order to have a 'morally' responsible war against it? What is the problem having MILITIANS firing rockets from their background? Yet, with all the videos Israel has published, i've yet to see any of those militians using civilians as shields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.165.14 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bases - for the airforce alone - Hatzor and Hatzrim, maybe also Tel Nof (very close to Gedera, which was hit today) (see the map of the IAF website). There are many ground forces bases in the area as well.

Hamas has military installations, mostly from the time of Abu-Mazen's control. But they fire from civilian areas, from schools, from between houses. They use homes and mosques as weapons stores. See the videos. There's an incredible amount of evidence for this conduct. okedem (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As well as the Ashdod naval base from which the naval blockade is operated (would have made a super-quality military target), and the Gaza Brigade base from which the entire operation is managed (haven't heard on a single mortar round falling there). Both are HUGE bases. --Omrim (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All three of those bases and cities, are NOW coming under attack, thanks to what it seems as 'better' rockets from Hamas arsenal.[8]

Also notice the strategic location of those bases, as it was my reference point, all being at least 25 miles away from the Gaza Strip...and yet, as good as a target that they are(as you noticed) it seems they are hearing the call.

"On December 24, five days after the lull arrangement ended, the cities of Ashqelon , Netivot and Sderot, the towns and villages near the Gaza Strip, the crossings and IDF bases were subjected to a massive rocket and mortar shell attack. At least 60 rockets and mortar shells ::::::were fired, most of them by Hamas."

I think you both are Palestinians agents. "Hamas now has longer range Iranian-made rockets, and several hit near the Israeli port city of Ashdod for the first time, 23 miles [37 km] from Gaza.Israel's Home Front Command recommended that all communities within a 40-kilometer range of Gaza be hooked up to the Color Red incoming missile alert system."

"While news accounts reference these as Grad rockets [the Russian nomenclature] or "enhanced Katyusha", the rockets used in the attack on Ashdod must have a range twice that of the BM-21 Grad. Photographs of a rocket that landed near Gan Yavne, northeast of Ashdod on 28 December, do indicate that it was a 122-mm rocket. This is inconsistent with the idea that HAMAS was using Iranian-made rockets, either the Oghab with a range of 34-45 km or the Fajr-3 / Ra'ad with a range of 45 km."

Also, you mean to say "Hamas had military installations"...or Israel not attacking them in this latest excursion? That would seem out of touch with reality.

The Gaza Brigade base is ON THE BORDER between Gaza and Israel. Not "25 miles" away. The Naval ashdod base is not in ashdod, but NEAR ashdod, in it was not hit, or even targeted. --Omrim (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your increased attention-span would had been a better response in this case... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.70.168 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles

In 2008 there was a Request for arbitration on editing on Palestine-Israel articles. The page includes user descriptions of the problems and arbitrators' final decisions regarding the conflict: remedies (discretionary sanctions of blocks, bans, etc. by uninvolved administrators, a working group and reminding and counseling editors) and enforcement (logging of notifications, blocks and bans on users who have engaged in problematic editing on Israel-Palestine issues). Read the whole arbitration for an in depth understanding of the issues and remedies involved. Therefore issues can be brought directly to Wikipedia Arbitration Enforcement.

There is a WP:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration which has some tips on how to resolve disputes, including up to arbitration and a Current Article Issues Discussion page for reporting or discussing issues with specific articles. Check them out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The problems I think RomaC's highlighting are a consequence of the title changing from "2008-2009 Gaza Strip Airstrikes" to its present one. I came here (initially commenting as unsigned) to read about that story, but when the ground incursion / invasion loomed, it was inevitable that the title would have to be changed.

However, it seems to me that under the auspices of changing the title to something neutral sounding that also reflected events, the article has been re-cast in such a way as to be broadened beyond coverage of the current events and their immediate strategic context -- which are after all what most readers are interested in, and are what is keeping the article on the front page as a Current Event! At the moment there is just about a reasonable balance between events and context - it's reasonable to mention the rocket attacks - but only insofar as they are a stated reason for the conflict. If there's too much detail about them, pro-Palestinians will want the blockade discussed in detail, and we enter into an infinite chain of causality (or rather, recrimination).

This broadening of scope inevitably serves a pro-Israeli agenda, which clearly is to frame the assault in the wider context of Hamas rocket attacks. However, to some extent this *is* appropriate. Whether the rocket attacks are the true reason for the attacks or as I believe, a pretext, should be left up to the reader to decide. I say we should change the title to "Israeli offensive" -- which is the notable event this article arose to cover -- concentrate on reporting the atrocities in Gaza, and let the pro-Israelis have their justification about rockets but not in detail - let them refer readers to the list of Qassam attacks that already exists. Don't let the article grow beyond reason, become broken up and edited as a number of cheesy and obviously partisan "counter articles", where credibility will be lost as a whole.--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree and take issue with your characterization. The title change was a result of the events changing, and then a widely participated, contentious and well argued discussion that led to the current title, and has continued as a current debate.

The topic has not widened, and inclusion of background information is not widening the scope, it is simply including a verifiable fact of these events: they didn't happen out fo the blue, and both sides have argued motivations and counter motivations and have their own take on the events. We must write about this. That some editors are actively trying to steer the narrative in one way or the other is only natural in such a controversial article. What we should do is face it head on, assuming good faith, bringing sourced material, reverting the shit out of the POV pushers and WP:SYNTH warriors, and then applauding our results for the 30 seconds consensus lasts until the next BRD starts. Your conspiranoia is insulting and unwikipedian.

Furthermore, those who have argued to narrow the topic of the article have mostly been pro-Israeli editors who want to use the "Operation Cast Lead" as the article name. <sarcasm>Are you false-flagging for any chance? I mean, if you are into conspiracy, so can I, right?</sarcasm> >:) --Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you leave no doubt as to your own sympathies. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The point it is it is a remedy if the article gets too partisan and there are numbers being pulled, especially as a result of tag teaming and canvassing. They don't have to be proved; the resultant POV will be the issue, of course. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks people for the discussion. It is possible to focus on one event within a larger, related and ongoing event -- in the interconnected world, that is what Wiki ought to do -- see the Bombing of Dresden article, which does not delve into the evils of Hitler or concentration camps etc, but instead looks dispassionately at the bombing of Dresden. By contrast, in this article a novel framing device was introduced, reflected in a name that few RS were using, and the article proceeded in the opposite direction -- away from a focus on the event. This is the threat, not because I didn't agree, but because editors lined up and used their numbers to trump Wiki policies (see: Wikipedia naming conventions and polling is not a substitute for discussion). RomaC (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN biased?

This edit,[9] alleges that CNN is biased. I don't think the edit has merit because the sources are not reliable, but would like to hear what others think.

Previous messages that I left the user on his talk page have been blanked without response.VR _talk 08:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also left a message for this user about repeated disruptive very pro-Israeli (but probably good faith from his perspective)edits. Someone else did too. It's getting to the point where further action might be required in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Yahoo Answers? Who is he trying to kid... Remove it. I've been watching alot of CNN and can't see a bias. I mean he claims they don't cover Israeli deaths, from what this article states, there are 9 israeli deaths and 560 palestinian deaths, if anything it would be a pro-Israel bias to report the deaths as equals. And they are obviously showing injured Palestinians because there are many more than injured Israelis — chandler — 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

VR and others.In these cases, where the narrative assumes a personal voice, and editorializes, one does well just to note this on the talk page, and erase the edit. Feel free to delete that section, since it is both poorly sourced and editorializes. Anyone here may remove it without objection, since removing this kind of abuse does not require consensus. It violates core policy.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it for now, If someone comes with a RS criticising CNN it can be re-introduced (but re-phrased I guess) — chandler — 09:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a wise move to find an RS to jusatify its reinclusion. It only opens up a battle to stick in many sources saying Israeli official or unofficial but mainstream sources are biased. Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Ok, meant if a credible source really, in that it probably should be mentioned if the BBC ran something about it, but not if the Sun came out with "CNN hates Israel" — chandler — 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the claim that CNN is biased should be removed. From what I've read from international media the coverage on CNN seem quite balanced. --user from Finland.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.66.153 (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the claim should not be reinserted, even if someone finds a reasonable source for it. Otherwise we'll end up in circles, with someone then finding a source that says that the critical source is biased against CNN, and on and on until we have an absurdly qualified piece of text. All media in this area are accused of bias one way or the other, sometimes of bias both ways. CNN as it happens seems to get a lot of stick from the other side as well. Note as well that the editor including this seems to have made a habit of dumping extended commentary into this article over the past few days. It's hard enough to produce a decent, readable and accurate article about an event which is both in the news and part of such a controversial topic area, without that sort of constant interruption. --Nickhh (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have written on the subject of a possible CNN bias before, see Archive. I personally have found the CNN to be slightly anti-Israel biased in comparison with the BBC. Accusations of a pro-Palestinian CNN bias are also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on CNN. Honest_Reporting[10], an organization monitoring the media for anti-Israel biases, in it’s Year Analysis of CNN has come to the conclusion that “anti-Israel bias has crept back into CNN’s coverage”. Furthermore, fear of possible anti-Israel bias by media in general, has been stated to be one of the reasons for Israel to actively engage in an online media propaganda. SOTT net Information Warfare Monitor Frankly speaking, “where there is smoke, there is fire”, has been a proverb probably for as long as mankind uses fire...
In this article, however, mention of a possible CNN anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias should not be made unless it appears in sources pertaining to the present conflict. Debresser (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Sean.hoyland - talk 14:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, VERY unbiased. I just watched a report in its front page showing the borders of Israel encompassing all Palestinian territories. Go back into your Hebrew fanaticism close circle cause here you're only being ridiculed publicly. Leladax (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Leladax. I find your language insulting. Please consider changing part of your last comment. Debresser (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest you report him at WP:DRAMA. That was bullshit and uncalled for. Borderline antisemitic, if not antisemitic period.--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a level 3 warning in his talk page. Sorry you had to endure that. :( --Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you put 100 warnings. I'm not a racist, so you take it back. Just because I think there are Hebrew fanatics, and Christian fanatics, and Atheist fanatics it doesn't mean I'm a racist. Leladax (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not what you ARE, but how you EXPRESS yourself. You have been warned not to use such language any more, and that's it, whether you like it or not. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thebiojoe is one of the worse ninja editors we have. He refuses any kind of dialog. If he continues, I am asking for sanctions under ArbCom for WP:POINT and contentious editing. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this but let's give him a chance. He's new, he's Israeli-American and I suspect he's probably young, bless him. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why all the Hamas qualifications?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please discuss lede/intro/lead section issues at Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead, if you want to continue this conversationa s part of the background section, open a new section.

---

From the first lines of the article: "conflict between Israel and Palestinian Islamist group Hamas" -- Like them or not, shouldn't Hamas be more accurately described here in Wiki as the "Gaza government"? Soon after we see: "This Israeli-Gaza conflict is the deadliest conflict since Hamas established political control of Gaza in early 2006 and forced out Fatah in the 2007 Battle of Gaza" How is this germane to the article? Hamas won the 2006 elections, a Fatah coup failed. Why not "...since Hamas was elected in 2006"? Wiki uses neutral descriptors, why doesn't this article? RomaC (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the text should read for economy 'the conflict between Israel and Hamas'. Links can clarify what Hamas is about. 'Islamicist' says nothing other than flag the usually red rag to a POV bull. It is, as you say, the duly elected authority of the Gaza Strip. The phrase 'deadliest conflict' should be eliminated as irrelevant especially in a lead, and is notoriously poorly phrased and badly sourced.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. we would have to discuss the differing political factions in israel with regard to who has currently "established political control" and that all belongs in a different article. Untwirl (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas is only the government of Gaza in a defacto sense, describing it as just the government of Gaza is too simplistic. Its not entirely clear the Hamas takeover was a response to an actual coup attempt. This article should not seek to answer that issue. Writing should recognise Hamas's electoral victory, but also its ejection of Fatah from the strip, its the only manner fair. I agree the wording needs to be altered. Superpie (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a neutral title would be "Gaza's Hamas regime" (since Israel's talking about regime change[11]), although others have called it "Gaza's democratically elected Hamas government".[12]VR _talk 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Superpie What's not entirely clear? It was elected, and a coup was staged, and repressed, as we learnt in April from a well-documented study in Vanity Fair The Gaza bombshell. Israel again may seek 'regime-change', but an unadorned 'Hamas' (linked) is perhaps the best way to go, NPOV-wise. 'Hamas government', like 'Hamas regime' are POV or question-begging, the former because it is a regional administration and stateless, the latter because it is a term of political abuse by Hamas's adversaries. Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

• Nishidani what I am saying is that irregardless of the in my view, still unclear circumstances surrounding the Gaza takeover, calling Hamas the "government of Gaza" legitimises the actions it has taken and isnt neutral -I essentially agree with the latter part of your comment, it would be more sensible to use Hamas unadorned rather than attempt to cover its electoral victory, the takeover, its technical mandate etc etc. Superpie (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabic Interwiki

I can say it a thousand times - the Arabic article "the Massacre of Gaza" cannot be regarded as an equivalent to this article. There was a short period of time when the Arab Wikipedia had indeed a relatively fair article about the events in Gaza, but they moved it again to this provocative title, and made that article once again into an anti-Israeli propaganda. They also created "a series of articles about Israeli massacres" which includes that "massacre" article with "The Gaza Holocaust" and other despicable materials like this. The fact that the Arabic Wikipedia users breached any possible Wikipedian rule is one thing, the fact that the English Wikipedia cooperate with this approach by considering this article equivalent to that "massacre" article is another. They are not equivalent, and shouldn't be regarded as such. DrorK (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not for you to decide. if Gaza Massacre is the common name of the attack in arabic, that's the name they should use. If anything this only sounds like a pro-Israel move for removal of the view of the arabic world. — chandler — 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't really understand the concept of conveying knowledge. Calling someone "a murderer" is not okay just because many people say so, whether it is in Arabic or in English. The Arabic Wikipedia users are trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for propaganda counting on the fact that there aren't too many foreigners who speak their language. In any case, such a propaganda cannot be said to be equivalent to this article. DrorK (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can restate your position a million times DrorK. It won't make it any more valid. Arabic sources use "Gaza massacre", "War on Gaza" and "Gaza Under Fire" to describe the events we are describing here. It's up to editors of the Arabic article to debate their name choices based on an assessment of reliable sources, much as we are here. (And you should take your debate there, since as you said earlier, you are fluent in Arabic). I'm quite sure they are as offended by our title, which creates a false parity where there is none, as you are by theirs. Should they refuse to link to en-wiki citing our bias? Tiamut^talk 13:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesnt mean it shouldn't be included. The Hebrew wp probably is just as biased, and from what I can see it links to the arabic one, therefore we have to remove the hebrew one and all other languages who link and think themself the equivalent to the arabic article. And again, it has already been discussed to leave it in. The article is covering the same thing. And why wouldn't it be ok to call someone a murderer, there are murderers you know. — chandler — 13:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the Hebrew Wikipedia article is not biased and you are invited to check it. Actually, the Arabic Wikipedia article is the only one among the different Wikipedias which manipulates facts and terminology. The debate in the Arabic Wikipedia is full of slandars towards those who try to change this state of affairs. This is a disturbing issue for itself, but it is not relevant here. What is relevant is that we cannot link this article to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". Sorry, we are not here to make anti-Israeli propaganda, even if it is only through an interwiki. DrorK (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the common name in the arab world. It is not about pro/anti-Israel. And again, just because you dont like what the common name in, doesn't mean it should be removed. — chandler — 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, the arab point of view should be shown as interwiki or something. Hide a link to simply state "provocative" it's your opinion and POV measurement. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, who cares Arabic wiki? ;).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.22.58 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me assure you that I would ask to remove the he-wp interwiki as well had it been linking to an article titled "The Glorious Victory over Hamas", or even "The Israeli War against Terrorism". All articles in all Wikipedias describing these events titled their articles either with the meaningless code-name given by the Israeli army, with a fairly neutral title such as "The Attack on Gaza", "The Israeli-Gazan Conflict" etc. All but the Arabic Wikipedia in which some users are trying to push propaganda, and by linking to their article we bring this propaganda here through the back door. Sorry, this is not why we're here. DrorK (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab Wikipedia bias is not our point. Interwiki is to link and integrate all other Wikipedias with the same content, biased or not, well worked or not. You're disrupting an Wikipedia feature. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it DrorK, or you could participate in the editing of the arabic wiki if you like. RomaC (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedians actually prevent people from editing this articles, by putting all kind of pressure on people who wish to balance the article. The interwiki should go immediately because "Gaza massacre" cannot be a title for an article which describes these events. DrorK (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DrorK that's not for you to decide, you've been warned for vandalism there is no consensus for your repeated deletions of the interwiki link to the arabic article. RomaC (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

DrorK: I agree the Arabic wikipedia is mistaken in naming their article "massacre", but their mistake is their mistake: this is EnWiki... don't inter-wiki forum shop :D.

Your argument on "murdering" is compelling, but ultimately falicious in this context: no one (serious) here is saying that we call these events "massacre". In an article about someone charged with murder, we ar enot allowed to call the person a "murderer" that is true. But we are allowed to say that the prosecutor called the subject a "murderer". It doesn't make it true or biased, it simply describes accurately the views of the prosecutor.

Likewise, this article describes these events as "Operation Cast Lead", a description not accepted by one side of the events, but significant nevertheless and we must mention it in the lead/lede/intro because it is the the description given by one side. We must give due weight consideration to the "massacre" name, provided it is well sourced and verifiably an official claim - we had some issue with false sourcing - and will accept sources in any language provided they verify (it is trivial to find verification in other languages, even rough online translations are enough). Nuetrality requires that we do, as it would be like the prosecutor's description of a person accused of murder, but whose guilt has not been proven.--Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic Wikipedia, as any Wikipedia, is not a source - it relies on sources. It doesn't suppose to have an opinion or express an opinion of its own. By calling the events in Gaza "massacre" they breach the basic rules of Wikipedia in any language. The fact that many Arab sources use this terminology doesn't make it okay to call the Arabic article "the Gaza Massacre". By having an interwiki to this Arabic article we (indirectly) acknowledge the Arabic Wikipedia improper judgment. While I don't expect English speaking Wikipedians to get involved in the Arabic Wikipedia, I do expect them to say: we will not link the article "2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" to an article called "The Gaza Massacre". We cannot suggest that these two articles are equivalent. We could mention in the body of the English article that there are Arab source that use this terminology, but our message to our Arabic speaking colleagues is: write a real equivalent article, and then we will interlink. You are part of the Wikipedia project and not another Arab source. DrorK (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In contrast to DroK,I note that linking to all Wikipedia articles is vital to indicate various approaches to covering an issue. The best that the English Wikipedia can do is indicate the questions arising in relation to the Arabic version. Not to link would be to close a door on an information source .Any item that provides information, whatever the origin of that information,is a source, even if only a source at a third or fourth remove.

My entry is definitely not part of this article work, but I feel that some background is needed. I am really sorry for the way this matter was badly presented. Dorok forgot to mention here a few minor facts. Such as the fact that almost all major Arabic news agencies address the event as "Massacre of Gaza", and by almost all I mean a really considerable amount of ALMOST ALL. Simply put, this is the name widely used in Arab world to refer to this event. Whether the name is not appealing to someone is not, and will not be an issue back in Arabic wikipedia. Such naming conflict is similar in nature to the Arabian-Persian gulf naming conflict. The article name might be changed in the future if the majorty of local media shift the use of the naming criteria. Such criteria was applied to the the 2006 war on Lebanon article as the article was finally named "حرب لبنان 2006" arabic for "2006 Lebanon War". That did not seem to bother Dorok at the time, as calls from lots to name it "Lebanon Massacre" were ignored

Drork contributions within this article on ar.wiki, were really few. The main highlights were: a couple of non-whatever discussed, extremely argumental article renaming attempts. Followed, when failed, by an 'you people should leave wikipedia' kind of argument. Then another undiscussed move followed, when failed, by an "You hate me cause I am an Israeli" kind of argument. Then another long "You are all nothing but a bunch of liars" argument. Sadly no real discussion was even attempted by Dorok. Similar argument were used by Dorok in the past in ar.wiki, arguments such as the 'if you do not agree with me then that means you are HAMAS' argument , and the famous 'you are nothing but a terrorist, your arguments are meaningless to me'. once Dorok pasted his two bits, he requested his userpage erased, and came here to ..... I don't know really. I find him capable of opening a discussion here.

Dorok might has been offended by the article title, I am willing to understand that. Every body here is offended by something. Yet, being offended is not relative to the work we handle. Lots of Arabic wkipedia users had there share of bad feelings cause of the use of the images within Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, yet, when a fast vote (here on en.wiki) took place most of Arabic wikipedia users, including my self, voted to keep the images within en.wikipedia. People crying to remove the en.interwiki from the arabic article where handled gently, as we explained to them the fact that en.wikipedia is another project, and communities on any project have the right to add any basic information or file they find appropriate to an article, the extent of the word appropriate is left to the community of the project in talk.

Personally I find the discussion that toke place above about Arabic wikipedia, extremely inappropriate, and certainly irrelevant to the article. Neither the larger size of English wikipedia , nore Arabic wikipedia refusal of disruptive actions is a good reason to smear Arabic wikipedia project within this talk-page.

Again I know my entry was irrelevant to this article. and I do apologize. I do not feel good when I am pushed to discuss gray with a black and white person, I know most of you feel the same. A single side of a story, is really nothing more than that. It does not matter if the story was part of an article or a compliant. --Tarawneh (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification - all of my edits were reverted, and I was called "a Zionist racist" and "a soldier in the occupation army" on the talk page of the Arabic article. For the record - I'm not a soldier, not even a civil servant. The fact that the majority (certainly not all) of Arab sources call the even "a massacre" is irrelevant. They might as well call Olmert "the murderer" it would NOT make this terminology valid for Wikipedia. These rules are applicable for all Wikipedias, and indeed despite certain problems with the he-wp article, no one there would even dream to call such an article "The War on Terror" or something similar to that, backing it with Hebrew sources. The Iranian sources certainly use the term "massacre" due to their anti-Israeli approach, and yet the Persian Wikipedia keep the article about the recent events in Gaza very neutral and informative. Despite the seemingly irrelevance of this discussion to en-wp, I am glad it is held here, because it might bring to people's attention the fact that there are rules which are applicable to all Wikipedias, and that Wikipedias in certain languages should not be left as an island or a closed community. DrorK (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork was given a short wikibreak on commons because of his insults there. Rules apply also to Drork. And one important rule is that wikipedia is not censored. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper, why won't you go and browse some of Latuff's albums, or paint some swastikas on your room walls? I think it will calm you down a bit. DrorK (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Drork, give it a rest. Iranians and Olmert? what does that have to to do with the Arabic wipkedia article? And why are we even discussing this here? Plus rules? What rules? You do not mean the hidden unwritten secret rules like the ones you claimed exist in your argument in an attempt to speedy delete the Holocaust denial stub back on Arabic, cause the "concept of Holocaust denial" is illegal in some countries, and that time must not be waisted in such articles. Or the secret hidden rules you based your "I will make sure this project is closed down for good" big speech last year. Don't you find your claim to improve the article back there strange , when the only contributions you did had in its talkpage were nothing but insults to other users. Correct me if I was wrong, but the only sincere effort from your side to that article was to request its interwiki removed here by providing false claims.

Is this really about the article? Somebody insulted you! Man, I opened a special page for people to insult me. You had your share of actually insulting a lot of Arabic wikipedia editors, insulting them as editors. Still, you as a user was never blocked, dispite your behaviour (other than your 3rr blocks). A lots of Arabic wikipedia users including my self belive that regardless of your behaviour, the Israeli articles in Arabic wikipedia needs your contributions to provided the needed balance. Please give it a rest. If this is about the Arabic page, then there is a talk-page for that in Arabic wikipedia, and if this is about you, then this is not the page to discuss it. --Tarawneh (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarawneh, don't make it a personal issue. You know perfectly well that ar-wp has deteriorated into anti-Israeli propaganda. You know perfectly well that it also includes propaganda against Druze and other groups. I did my best to help improving it, but honestly I have had enough. It is a pity that we have this discussion here in English. Had it been on ar-wp I would have been called "Zionist racist" and blocked. DrorK (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The ArWiki editors are working on the article, DrorK. Kindly keep in mind that due to its nature as a work in progress, it is very much possible to have not-very-much-neatly-written paragraphs and/or bias-wise shady wordings. The common goal is, of course, to have everything fixed as soon as possible. Come along and join the work, and remember the golden rule: Do not think of discussion pages as forums or bulletin boards :) --Almasvault (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with DrorK, it is an unfair to name the article such but at the same time theres no harm to EnWiki linking to the Arabic page on the Gaza situation. Its useful to see how neutrality, differs from region to region, from language to language Superpie (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So neutrality is a matter of geography? DrorK (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all this discussion has gone actually too long and should not be discussed here but in Arabic Wikipedia or something, because this is a matter of the Arabic Wikipedia and not the English Wikipedia. There is a discussion on the Arabic Wikipedia on why to change the article to the war on Gaza. Feel free to comment there and put these opinions there. Second of all the whole Arabic region sees the attacks as inhuman and as a total massacre because the attacks were air raids by the IAF where Gaza has no air defense and no military that could even defend the public. Half of the deaths were women and children, which makes the collateral damage too big. So, please don't say it's biased and so on the arabic article has all the info that make it unbiased mentioning the rocket attacks by Hamas that started the whole war, but also mentioning the total punishing of the palestinians through the closing of all Gazan borders, which resulted in no supplies including medical, petrol and food supplies. The punishing of all the Gazans is regarded as a massacre. The definition of a massacre is: "The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people" Israel knew that there were civilians there and the casualities were too many to be regarded as a normal attack. The Arabs are very sensitive now about the subject. They know that it was a result of Hamas's attacks but still the civilian casualities were too much to be left without protest.

• What to do? Wait until this calms down and it may be called the war on gaza.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How come no other Wikipedia called the events in Gaza "a massacre"? How come the only Wikipedia that has an article called "The Gaza Holocaust" is the Arabic one (about a clash between Israel and Hamas in Feb 2008)? How come it is the only Wikipedia which has a category about "Zionist massacres" against Palestinians? How come it is the only one that has an article about Israel's plans to demolish Al-Aqsa Mosque? How come it is the only Wikipedia which refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hebrew is one of the main languages spoken in the region of Palestine? How come it is the only Wikipedia that describes the Western Wall as a holy Muslim shrine rather than a religious Jewish praying site? How come a person who protest this propaganda offered under the name Wikipedia is called "Zionist racist" (which is one of the reasons why this discussion is held here and not there)? DrorK (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox edit

Wandersage made this edit[13] in the infobox. He removed a source[14], as well as combined "military and police", which is not appropriate. He also changed "Gaza officials" (more precise) to the more ambiguous "Palestinian estimate". I disagree with all of the above edits.VR _talk 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The question whether or not military and police should be united, has been debated before. I do not remember if any consensus was reached.
I could argue that such a decision might depend on their actual function in Gaza. I mean to say that if police takes part in the struggle against the Israeli army, they should be for all purposes considered as combatants.
A more compelling argument might be the convention used by sources. If they take police and military together, we don't really have that much choice.

As to whether to use "Gaza officials" or "Palestinian estimate" I have no real argument. In this case I would favor "Palestinian estimate", since Gaza is not a political entity in itself. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The official source for "Palestinian estimate" is the Palestinian Ministry of Health and should be cited formally as such. It is not a general "Palestinian estimate" but a number directly from the Ministry of Health. It is cited as such in all UN documents. Also the fact that Israeli injured includes shock victims was edited out. I implore everyone to review my general criticisms of casualty accounting for Palestinians and implement the changes I have argued for as not a single person has argued against them. We have good numbers for women and children killed, they should be included, we have good sources indicating that civilian counts only included women and children this should be noted.

Thrylos000 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed to mention that 'wounded' included shock-victims.
So now the question is, should the Palestinian Ministry of Health be qouted as 'Gaza officials' or as 'Palestinian sources'. I still prefer the second. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We agreed, and yet it had been edited out of the article. The Palestinian Ministry of Health should be quoted as the Palestinian Ministry of Health and nothing more or less. No reason to be more ambiguous that necessary. We have an explicit source, so our citing of that source should be explicit. Someone needs to edit the infobox and casualty sections to restore the note on shock victims and to update the number of women and children killed. Thrylos000 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Go with my blessing, my son. :) Debresser (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done: Added caveat about shock victims. NonZionist (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Waiting to be autoconfirmed, in the mean time it would be good for someone with sufficient user access to take initiative here... Thrylos000 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok how about "Ministry of Health (Palestinian)". I linked it as "MoH" a very common abbreviation, and linked it to Ministry of Health (Palestinian).VR _talk 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding policemen and military, they are coming from two different sources. I wouldn't combine them, just as I wouldn't combine policemen (often considered 'civil servants') with civilians. The policemen, according to the source, were killed the first day of strikes, mostly while in the police station, so they were not KIA. I'll separate them.VR _talk 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't agree with counting policemen separately. Should we also count firemen as "combatants", since they are combating fires? -- sarcasm intended. AFAICS, victims of aggression are ALL civilians. International law condemns aggression and recognizes the right of victims of aggression to resist without loss of protected status. Do we REALLY want to discard the distinction between aggressor and victim? NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The military figure is not by MoH, nor the UN or media sources, but rather claimed by IDF. I'm wondering if you should quote it in the infobox at all, given that Hamas has made parallel claims as to how many IDF soldiers it has killed[15]. Hamas has also claimed that a lot less of its soldiers (around 10[16]) have been killed.VR _talk 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on not including figures claimed by the military wings/branches of the combatants in the infobox, but on separate related issue, I am going to move the Ministry of Health (Palestinian) to Health Ministry of the Palestinian National Authority in consistence with the articles on the PNA's interior, planning, information, education, foreign affairs, and prime ministries/ministers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite this agreement, why do users keep on adding Israeli claims on Palestinian casualties to the info box?VR _talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Other

VR since you've taken the lead with the edit box and casualties pleae look at #Counting the Women and Children Killed and make the appropriate changes in the editbox and under the casualty subheading.

If you could: 1. Include women and children killed in the infobox 2. Note the accounting of civilian casualties has not included men under the casualty subsection and only reflects women and children

See: #Comments on Palestinian Casualty Accounting for the full analysis I provided.

Thrylos000 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that Gaza militants have since the start of the operation been fighting almost exclusively uninformed, and the fact that there is no practical difference between "Police" and "militant" in function, and given that distinguishing between Civilian and Militant in this case is difficult enough, (especially with the lack of journalists in the area) I believe that Partitioning non-Civilian casualties even further makes things unnessecarily ambigious, not to mention clogs up the info-box. WanderSage (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Are Israeli police then fair targets? Civilian police forces have always been considered that, civilian. But it doesn't matter what you or I think about this, reflect the sources is the answer (as it almost always is). Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with WanderSage. The fact that a large number of police have been killed is a significant fact. It should be noted appropriately, if not in the infobox then at least in the Casualty section. It is not for us to decide whether the police are legitimate targets at this point. If someone can find a good, current, justification by Israeli officials for the targeting of police then we can post that along side the casualty figures.Thrylos000 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess I'll separate policemen and militants. However, I'll let the civilians stay as they are, and we can discuss women and children in the Casualties section. I'll also put a fact tag on the Hamas militants killed, so that we can get independent sources on this.VR _talk 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone else here noted earlier, the whole population opposes the Israeli assault and resists, so the entire population should be treated as "combatants". This simply demonstrates that the distinction between "combatant" and "civilian" is meaningless when applied to people under occupation. These artificial distinctions merely serve to obscure the significant distinction, that between aggressor and victim. NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Under Palestinian casualties there is an entry for "Unknown". I think that that is unnecessary, and there is no source backing this unknown up. "Unknown" can be interpreted to mean "missing", which is misleading.VR _talk 00:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• WanderSage, please don't write (Hamas claim), (Israel claim), in the infobox. We don't do this when Israel reports its casualties, we shouldn't be doing this for Palestinians either. Let's relay on Reliable Sources for our claims. The previous discussion seems to be in agreement with that.VR _talk 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

VR, we don't do this for Israeli casualties because they can be indepdently varified. Due to the restrictions placed on journalists and other organizations in Gaza, this isn't the case there. This is the reason we have such a discrepency between the Israeli claims and Hamas claims. 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, "shock" victims is a bit of an underestimated term. The correct way to call it is Trauma victims. Also, since we're not mentioning Gazan trauma vicims, I don't see why should we could Israeli trauma victims. Either give physically injured on both sides, or give also trauma victims on both sides. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One good reason is that the official Israeli figures mention them. We should reflect information, not points of view. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

i don't think we should include everything official Israeli figures mention, a point has already been made that Israel officials stated the death of a family dog. I'm not completely sure that they don't, but unless other such articles mention shock or trauma victims this one shouldn't either. Untwirl (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You wanted my opinion on the infobox edits VR so here they are:
1. count the total number of dead, currently at 670 dead
2. count the number of policemen killed by December 29, 138 dead
3. count the number of militants killed in the ground offensive, currently at 150 dead - YOU may not want to include that number because it is coming from an Israeli source, BUT the UN itself said today that 300 of the 670 dead are civilians, so logic dictates the rest are eather militants or Hamas policemen. So that would fit the pattern. Also, a Palestinian human rights group said 40 percent of the dead are civilians, so that still leaves enough of the number of killed to fith the 150 number, even with the inclusion of 138 policemen in the remaining 60 percent
4. count the number of civilians killed, currently at 300 dead according to both the Palestinians and the UN
5. with 150 militants, 138 policemen and 300 civilians that leaves out of a total of 670 dead another 80 or so unidentified and so they are put in the catagory of unknown. That is my opinion, simple as that.BobaFett85 (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN never said that there are a maximum of 300 civilians dead. In fact most sources say that there at least 300 civilians dead. You can't simply subtract numbers like this when most most are approximate. The fact is that there are no independent sources, nor Palestinian sources that have found the bodies of 150 militants, nor does Israel claim to have the 150 militants' bodies. Secondly, Hamas has made claims about killing many Israeli soldiers. Do we include that too?VR _talk 21:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I updated dead to 297 and wounded to 3085 citing http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200917151851205482.html Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I never, never said a maximum of 300 civilians dead! You are trying to twist my words. I said that both the UN and the Palestinians have said that 300 of the 670 dead are civilians. Because of the 150 and 138 number I put another 80 in the category of the Unknowns so we would be close to the total of 670 dead. Actualy, a new source now says 350 of the dead are civilians, I have now decreased the number of the unknowns but that still leaves enough bodies that would support the Israeli claim of 150 dead militants. Are you going to tell me that you belive Hamas when they say they lost only 10 fighters, and the Israelis themselves admited they lost 7 soldiers? What? A 10-7 kill ratio? We are talking about the most powerfull military in the Meadle East fighting a war against a guerrila group. How come nobody asks questions when the Americans say they killed 30 insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan at the cost of only one soldier killed or maybe just wounded? Hmmm?BobaFett85 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian school massacre by Israelis

Can someone add that the people in the school were families taking refuge and many of the targeted massacred people were children?? The article is locked to me, otherwise I would add this information myself. --Learsi si natas (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already in (unless someone removed it, and apart from the word "massacre") as well as the IDF arguments that Palestinian militants were firing mortars from within the school grounds.--Omrim (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of the people being families and no mention that many of the victims are children.--Learsi si natas (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not call things massacre here. That language is uncalled for.VR _talk 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion precisely. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? An American student walks into an American school and shoots dead 15 people, and that event is called a massacre. This slaughtering of families in this school is a massacre. The obvious doesn't need to be stated, everyone knows what it is without me telling them. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Another point for you Mr. I got to be a politically correct Muslim so people can tolerate me, the phrase "That language is uncalled for" can be used if I had said the Israelis are Satanist, not when I call their butchering of families a massacre. It is a suitable name. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of the term massacre, and the event having its own section, although I disagree with your ad-hominem. The UN claim the IDF had the GPS co-ordinates of the school, and if this is true the IDF knew precisely what they were doing. Whether it is collateral damage or not ('incidental to the outcome') it was still a massacre because the killing was intentional, not accidental. They knew many civilians were going to die. For comparison example the My Lai Massacre was both intentional and incidental to the objective of destroying a village suspected of harbouring Viet Cong. i also note this article is referenced from List of events named massacres--Chikamatsu (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that yours does not seem to be the majority opinion, from muslims and jews alike. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My arguments would be that 1. The IDF has consistently claimed Hamas combatants were in hiding in that building, so that any non-combatants killed would have to be considered 'collateral damage'. 2. A 'massacre' implies the intend to massacre. We're talking about war here, my friend. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So there are no massacres in wartime? What absurd logic! Ever hear of Custer? The "intent" issue is completely bogus. Israel tells us that it never intends to kill anybody, while Palestinians, out of pure sadism I suppose, intend to ki9ll everybody. And yet the Israelis, with their precision weapons, are killing forty times as many! How do you explain that? Is it all just one big accident? Do you really believe that Israelis are not intending to kill anybody when they drop one-ton bombs on apartment buildings? What do they think will happen?! NonZionist (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that the an IDF sergeant getting killed from that building indicates it to be something else besides just a place of learning. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A point worth mentioning is that according to the 4th Geneva Convention, the presence of a protected person (civilian) does not lend protection to a place used for any military activity - the presence of a protected person in such a place does not prevent an attack on said place, and the protected person is no longer protected. Meaning - if the school was used for military activity (firing at Israeli forces) - it's fair game, regardless of civilians there. Usually the Geneva conventions are mentioned when criticizing Israel. Somehow, I don't see people talking about the conventions now... okedem (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And I dont see people talking about Hamas saying there were no militants at the school. As far as using the word massacre to describe the events, can't do it unless reliable sources, and for something that can be considered incendiary, multiple reliable sources use that term. It isnt for us to decide how to describe what happened. If you think it should be called a massacre find sources. The ones I see don;t say massacre, they just say how many died (42 from reuters from medical sources, at least 30 from bbc quoting un). Nableezy (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously Hamas won't say anything else. Do you expect them to come out and say "We were using this school for shooting the Israeli soldiers, while there were civilians inside"?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly should I believe the Israelis and not Hamas? Why is whatever the Israeli military says, which as all professional armies undertands and engages in propoganda, taken to be the whole truth and what Hamas says to be a lie. I personally would believe Hamas claims over Israeli ones, and as Israel has refused to allow foreign press, despite a supreme court ruling that they must, I have no other sources than Palestinian ones. Nableezy (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The strike on the UN school is obviously and extremely significant event, since it is the major news item on most news outlets. Earlier it had it's own sub-heading in the Jan 6th heading, but that has been deleted. I think that is likely to be people trying to de-emphasise the event, probably for POV reasons. I suggest the sub-heading goes back in. Fig (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put the subheading back in. I think this is worthy of its own section, if the Dignity incident is.217.43.237.159 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They were sacrificed for the greater good. It is impossible to conduct a war without civilian deaths. We have to just accept that these tradegies happen. Chesdovi (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not quote Hermann Göring here. -Stevertigo 22:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought it was a Churchill. Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know public support of terrorism was allowed on these pages. --Learsi si natas (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the point of my post was not to advocate the inclusion of the term massacre (although this should be considered). Can we mention that the massacred victims included children, that's what I said earlier?? Yeah I still think it is a massacre, most people do, even Israelis like Chesdovi knows it a massacre (and in his view a terrific idea!!). --Learsi si natas (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think of massacres as the intentional killing of civilians. And I do not support terrorism. There is a time for war. And when that time comes, civilians will die. It is inevitable. Just as roads deaths which are waiting to happen, kill thousands each day, cars are still used. The good they provide outweighs the deaths incurred. I know it sounds awful, but that's the reality. Israel is hoping that greater good will come from actions it is forced to take. If Göring was referring to unintentional deaths of civilians, he had a point. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you do not support terrorism. But you do support war, which is mega-terror, terror multiplied by a thousand times. But you would not dream of applying the same cold-blooded "arguments" -- "It is inevitable" and "Killing people is for the greater good" -- to Palestinians. Only Israelis get to decide what is the "greater good" and when it is "time for war" (murdering people at a 40-to-1 ratio). Yes, I see why you like Göring: He too was a believer in a "Master Race". NonZionist (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's why wars arise: because both sides feel that they are the ones in the right. But there is a time for war. Why? Because evil exists and it must be fought. Would you prefer that Nazi Germany had extended its rule over the whole world? G-d forbid we should make war with them. No way! War means killing innocent people. We can't allow that. Let the master race just march in to every country one by one. The difference with the Palestinian "war" is that they target civilians. Israel - the good guys - do not. Simple! Chesdovi (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why someone with a POV would want to use "massacre". But as this is the English Wikipedia we probably should best use English. The unintentional killing of people is not a "massacre". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG, did you just realize that someone has a POV, and can you believe that other people have povs too? We're speaking English. And the part of it being intentional is arguable. --Learsi si natas (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, a "massacre" is an intentional butchering of civilians. You've been told that already. You cannot, and you will not call accidental civilian deaths (due to being used as human shields by Hamas, and there are video proofs) as a massacre. That's just an anti-Israeli demonization and it has no place in Wikipedia. It's no different than quoting "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", saying that Jews drink firstborns' blood and use it to make Matzah bread. Jeez! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you are not following along, I will explain it to you what I and what others have said!! The massacre/butchering/slaughter whatever you call it - is arguably intentional. Ummm.. with their constant targeting of children and blasting their body into pieces, I am beginning to wonder if the rumors are true --Learsi si natas (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a certain problem with the "unintentional" concept here. For one, they destroyed three UN schools, not just one. I could go on. -Stevertigo 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The attacks were certainly not unintentional, aren't even Israel making a big deal about that "Hamas weapons can't aim so they're war criminals", they their weapons are so accurate, they knew they were shooting at UN schools, where civilians where taking refuge, that sounds like a massacre to me (if compared to other massacres). The biggest Swedish newspaper (described "independently liberal") have even reported is as a "New bloodbath at UN school in Gaza" (Google translates to "New carnage at the UN school in Gaza") — chandler — 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The attacks were intentional, on Hamas' launching pads. There are videos of rockets being shot from these schools, and other buildings. Unless you're saying that IDF's UAVs photos are fabricated by the Zionist Propaganda Machine. *sigh* -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that the slaughter was "unintentional" is unsupported. Usually, when we have a serial killer, we assume that the killing is deliberate. One or two accidental killings, we can accept, but ceaseless killing of men, women, and children over a sixty year period? -- that is more than just an accident.

There are videos of the UN school being used as a launching pad for Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and conclusive evidence that militants were working within the civilian population at the time. If you're going to throw a term like massacre in an article as sensitive as this, both sides must be held responsible. WanderSage (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When making such strong claims it is customary to provide reliable sources supporting them. Please do so, I would be interested in seeing this video and this conclusive evidence. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The videos are from 2006 or 2007, the school had been evacuated due to an Israeli raid and only then did militants use the school to respond to Israeli aggression. Don't believe the propaganda. Forget intentional, a massacre is the indiscriminate killing of people and/or animals. Yes massacre is a heated word, but it is correct. The IDF has the GPS coordinates of the schools, but their secret (and probably illegal) rules of engagement are so broad that ground forces are responding to fire without regard to what they are firing at. This is what I heard an IDF spokesman say this morning. Okedem, the presence of fighters at a school does not make it "fair game", as if it were open season on school children. Article IV of the Geneva Conventions prohibits as indiscriminate "an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." The schools were fired on without any regard for civilian lives, so clearly there was no weighing of civilian losses against military advantage, there couldn't be. Instant war crime. Karldoh (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Massacre is entierly an issue of intent. Anyone who says otherwise has no grasp of the english language. And considering that civilian casualties provide absolutely no political or military advantage to Israel and only serves to undermine support abroad and at home, yet serves as the bread and butter of Hamas' political capital and fodder, even if you could prove that Israel had intent to slaughter civilians for no reason, all you would be proving is that Israel has developed a self-destructive masochistic complex. WanderSage (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When a force is being fired at, striking the source of gunfire is legal, as it has clear military benefit. okedem (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that these videos were not "photoshopped" in "Zallywood"? We presume that every photo and video that comes from Palestinians is fake, and every photo and video that comes from Israel is true: Why? What is the basis for such presumption? NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that all of you are engaged in in instant original research. Sources verify that this is being labeled as a massacre by one side, and one side only, with very little verifiability. As we all know, we are about verifiability not truth, so we must write about what is verified (that one side calls this a massacre) and don't write about what is not verified (that this is a warcrime). Its easy, really. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the only way you can "verify massacre" is if you'll find reliable sources that will say that these attacks were intentional because there were civilians, and that was the whole purpose. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The killings were intentional because Israel, knowing the potential for civilian casualties, intentionally failed to take measures to avoid them. Karldoh (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, these are just empty words. "Intentionally failed to take measure to avoid them?!" Are you kidding? If soldiers are being shot at from this school, they should sit and wait to die, or should react? You don't see any way how Hamas is responsible for this, by shooting FROM the school?! I know that this source isn't reliable for you probably, but it's the official statement, but you can't ignore the claim that a "mortar battery cell who were firing on IDF forces in the area" was there, and "amongst terrorists that were identified to be killed" were "Hamas operatives Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar", unless you think it's a lie, and then I'll revert to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" argument. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This event seems to closely parallel the Waco incident in 1993. Perhaps it should be called a mass suicide if the victims placed themselves, or were deliberately put, in harm's way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.220.50 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have found yet another way to blame the victims! No doubt the Palestinians, for no reason at all, are a "suicidal race", and love to suffer and be tortured. Their fondest desire in life is to perpetrate ethnic cleansing upon themselves. Fantastic! NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that the Palestinians are a suicidal people per se. However, using human shields is a common practice among Arab militants, as generally opposed to Western armies who conform to different moral values. As such, the reports coming in from Gaza about Hamas using heavily populated areas as launching areas fit in with this current case, with the poor Palestinian civilians taking refuge in the school acting as the shields for the militants. It is a damn shame that Hamas terrorists are deliberately firing from distinctly civilian areas. Rabend (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely it is moral to attack one of the worlds most densely populated areas with missiles and bombs, surely that is moral. Why I never thought of the morality of engaging in a crushing blockade of an occupied territory. And as far as being terrorist, read any number of UN declarations against terrorrism, this section will always appear:

Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;

But I forgot, the UN is anti-Israeli, right?Nableezy (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's relevant in the quote above. Gaza is not under Israeli colonial or racist regime or foreign occupation or other form of colonial domination. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza and let its people be. Its people elected a militant organization for a government, which instead of positively using the billions of dollars it received from the world to develop a self-sustaining country, decided to use these resources to arm itself and incessantly bomb Israeli towns for no apparent reason. The poor people of Gaza not only do not get a fair chance to develop their country, as Hamas is simply not doing that for them, but they're also being taken hostage by their own extremist, militant leadership, which, again, thinks it's more important to start a war with Israel than to actually make something useful out of their could-be country.

BTW, apropos violations of UN laws, while Israel may indeed be violating laws in this conflict, one must point out that Hamas is commiting war crimes according to various articles in the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Court statutes. Rabend (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire world, Israel excepted, recognizes that Gaza is under foreign occupation. Beyond that the billions is should have recieved were withheled from the government, so you are clearly wrong on basic facts. Israel controls Gaza's borders, airspace, and waters == Israel occupies Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel needs to control the borders since all Hamas is doing is smuggling in weapons. Blaming Israel for everything that's wrong in Gaza is just pathetic. And if you're looking for those billions, do some research maybe. Foreign assistance to Palestinians has been around $310 per Palestinian a year (while the post-WWII Marshall Plan provided around $70 for each European). Where did it go? The Funding for Peace Coalition reports that it mostly went to terrorism and embezzlement. Yasser Arafat, for example, amassed a fortune of around 1-3 billion dollars. Not too shabby. Just think if it all went into infrastructure and actual Palestinian citizens, instead of training suicide bombers.
It's much easier to keep blaming the outside world for everything. This way you have where to funnel your frustration to, while your 'leaders' are having everyting their way. Rabend (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat has been dead for some time now, so I do not see the relevance. And perhaps you should do some research before you make such completely false statements. After the election of Hamas, the EU, the US, and Israel refused to provide the government with the funds promised to it. Currently that funding has been provided only to the Fatah run PA, but the undeniable and completely true fact is that foreign assistance was withheld from a democratically elected government. And to speak of infrastructure after Israel has destroyed the police system and all governmental offices and then blame Hamas for that, cmon that is ridiculous. As far as 'my' leaders, as a dual US and Egyptian citizen, I think all 'my' leaders are bitches. You make these moronic assertions about money being funneled to train 'suicide bombers', about how they are only smuggling weapons. Really, how many 'suicide bombers' has Hamas claimed responsibility for since they won the election? Open your eyes, the world is not as Israel portrays it to be. Should the Palestinians be barred from defending themselves, their people and land? Should they have to face the regions strongest armies with just rocks? Why does Israel have the right to amass such weapons, including nuclear devices, while the Palestinians are relegated to throwing rocks at tanks? Hamas has a legal right to resist occupation, which they are currently under. Nableezy (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

As someone actually living in Israel, experiencing all these things on a daily basis, having friends from all walks of life, including the security forces, I can safely say that I'm quite in touch with what's going on in this area day-to-day. Israel is a modern, democratic country, and as such it shares many of the same principles as other western democracies. It doesn't want to conquer the middle east or enslave others or nuke Arabs just for the hell of it. Its people (in general; of course there are also extremists) want a peaceful coexistence with everyone around them, education, work, and just a reasonable life. I don't want to control Gaza or Ramallah or whatever. These views are not shared, apparently, by some of Israel's neighbors.
We would all wish for the Palestinian people to be strong enough in order to pursue a peaceful democracy and a viable economy. However, when non-stop attempts are made (and I'm speaking from first-hand experience) to kill Israeli citizens, well, screw that. The terrorists are gonna get it. And if the terrorists cowardly drag kids to serve as human shields (reports of that are plenty), the latter unfortunately might get hurt. And no one in Israel is happy to see civilians being killed in Gaza. No one. I wish the Palestinians would also be saddened to see all the Israelis killed or injured by suicide bombers and rockets in the last decade.

In any event, it is clear to us in Israel that both the Israelis and Palesitinians are victims of a militant leadership that insists upon living in a hateful past, instead of working together towards building a future for its people. Rabend (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the entire last statement, except for 'as someone actually living in Israel'. A modern democratic country upholds its own law and international law, not so with Israel with respect to the illeagal speration wall and not allowing foreign reporters intro Gaza, both of which the Israeli Supreme Court stated must be stopped, as well as settlement activity, the illegal annexation of Jerusalem and Golan, and countless other violations of international law. Sure the people may or may not want to live in peace, there are certainly thoose who wish to see the entire Palestinian people removed, countless settlers have committed horrific acts of violenece against Palestinians who have done them no harm. (Yes some Palestinians have commited horrific acts against individual Israelis that have done them no harm either). The idea that Israel really wants peace with its neighbors is proven incorrect by its actions. Syria has stated it will negotiate with Israel provided that Israel accepts to borders as recognized by the international community (ie give back Golan to Syria and Sheeba to Lebanon), Jordan and Egypt already have peace treaties with Israel. The whole of the Muslim world would grant recognition of Israel if it performs its duties under international law. And the Palestinians are not a victim of a 'militant leadership that insists upon living in a hateful past,' they did indeed vote to have them be their representative. It seems to me if you want peace than you negotiate with whoever is the representative of the people that you are in conflict with, here Israel decided that they would not negotiate with Hamas, so long as Hamas did not recognize preconditions, such as the recognition of right to exist. All this time Israel has never once recognized Palestine's right to exist. As far as using human shields, the UN and Hamas have both stated that they were no militants at the school, so how exactly are they using them as shields? Gazans are not a victim of Hamas, they are a victim of an Israeli occupation and attack. I dont see how much clearer that could acctually be. Nableezy (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen my share of individuals who are only capable of seeing their own side, and I must admit you rank pretty high up there. None of what I say is true, all of what you say is true, Palestinians have been victims for 60 years and they will forever be that, and Israel is comprised of evil sadists who enjoy killing innocent babies. There is no middle ground, right? No chance that someone on your side might take some of the blame as well. Well, good luck with that. That is just the kind of attitude that's keeping the middle eastern countries in the 3rd world. Nevertheless, have a good day. Rabend (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say everything you say is wrong, and I know I am biased in this (this discussion, I try very hard to keep my personal bias out of my edits). I don't think Israel is filled with evil sadists, but I think that the leadership is not interested in peace, or they would have taken steps needed to achieve it. And I truly hope that the Palestinians do not continue to be victims. What I think is keeping the middle eastern countries in the developing world is the leadership in those countries are corrupt and only looking after themselves, not their people. There is plenty of blame to go around, hell if the Arabs had accepted the original partition plan things might be quite different. What I take issue with in your comments is the idea that the Palestinians are to blame for their situation, they are one group that I think is blameless here. The blame in my mind goes to Israel, Egypt and Jordan for the historical apathy for the Palestinians while they were in control of the territory. As a side question, do you think that you are capable of seeing the other side? I can certainly understand the position that Israel is under attack from these rockets and had to respond, I think it is bullshit but I do understand it, and I would very much like to see a middle east where Arabs are not attacking Israelis and Israelis are not attacking Arabs, but to say that Hamas or the Palestinians are to blame for their situation I think is an odious statement. I do, with all sincerity, wish you peace and happiness, and that you have a good day as well. (And I don't think anybody enjoys killing babies, even the *wink* evil sadists in Israel) Nableezy (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Websters defines massacre as "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty." First it is important to note that the language used in the definition is purely subjective, that is to say that when it is written "usually" or "circumstances of atrocity" it all depends on who you ask, I think that since there is clearly dispute on this issue the word massacre would be unfit for use in this article due to POV issues. Secondly, even if we would use the subjective definiton, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476664,00.html this article cites the Israeli Defence Force that claims that Hamas was using the building to shoot rockets and it also presents this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI youtube video. The civilians who were inside the building are no longer protected by the Geneva convention, and they are not protected by common sense either. If there is a war, and someone is shooting rockets. Dont hide near him when there are chances the backlash will spill onto you. Either get rid of him or move yourself. It would be biased to claim this as a massacre. (213.8.225.111 (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Even if this were true, international law guarantees the victims of aggression the right to resist. NonZionist (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to post a comment that starts with "even if this is true" you should probably a)point out what is not trueand b) bring proof to show it is not (especially if there are references that claim "it" is). Also, with a username like "NonZionist" it is clear you are pushing an agenda/bias. Please, for the preservance of Wikipedia, keep your opinions to yourself. If you are going to critique do not do it in a manner that makes rash statements that are based on inference, guesswork and rumors.Do it in a constructive manner, if you are uncapable of this. keep it to yourself. This is not meant to insult you or your opinions but rather a sharp notification that especially in an article as charged as this one, transparent implementation of POV should be unacceptable on WP Relidc (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The U.N. is repudiating the IDF charge, so I was absolutely right to question the IDF version. The "Non-" in "NonZionist" is like the "non-" in "non-biased": It indicates my desire to be free of ideological prejudice. I do try to keep my tone civil and constructive, but that is hard when people are trapped in the grip of murderous fascist "logic". I'm sure many others here feel as I do. NonZionist (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How in any way that is sane, are you (and you happen to be grouped in with a bunch others) claiming that Israel is murerous and facist. Unless you dont really understand what they mean. Israel is a concensus democracy (if you dont know what that means it means everyone who recieves enough votes gets a seat in their parliment based on proportion of votes.) everyone, the winning party and the smallest minority, have their say in the government. This happens to be the farthest thing away from fascist that is still a democracy. Murdering is a little harder to define but lets look at Hamas for a second. Sure they won their democratic elections, and they are now the sole representation in Gaza, no reflection of the minority party (Fatah) but i guess thats not really correct since there is no minority party anymore cause Hamas murdered them all. Sounds a bit more like Fascism to me. And the murdering... Israel fires precision guided missles at military targets. Yes, civilians die but this is accidental, not that accidental means acceptable but there is a concept of collateral damage. Hamas sends unguided rockets at cities with no military presence what so ever. Ignoring the whole slew of problems this creates, it violates two main articles of the geneva accords (firing on civilians when there is no military presence, firing unguided rockets). So even if you want to claim Israel is murderous and fascist. How is Hamas not? Thucydidies (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there are no exact figures and no way to verify anything yet. If you remember the Battle of Jenin, you might know that it's worth waiting for official figures and details, before jumping to conclusion. According to the Palestinian side, there were 45 children and women there? According to IDF there were Hamas' mortar brigades and important militant commanders. The only thing we do know is that IDF shot at the school because they were fired upon from there, and that there are casualties. IDF also gave names. For now, it's just one foggy battle. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct Nomæd, an IDF spokesperson is not a reliable source, just as a Hamas spokesperson is not. The IDF cannot lie straight in bed. And it is not "the" official statement, it is desperate propaganda to retroactively justify their butchery. UNWRA spokesman Christopher Gunness (a somewhat more reliable source, you must agree) denies that Hamas was using the school to attack Israeli troops. If they were fired upon from the school, the very least they could do is wait for orders before responding. Are they not professional soldiers, at least some of them? If they returned fire indiscriminately (and I believe they did based on IDF comments at the time) then they committed a war crime. Karldoh (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare IDF's reliability with Hamas. Again, Hamas are using a very common device in the circles of radical Islam; Battle of Jenin, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, etc. But if you see them in the same way, I have nothing more to add. And you know what, about UN, they have been pushing Anti-Israeli decisions as long as I can remember. It's not surprising, considering the arab oil they love so much. UN is NOT an unbiased source. See the history of UN decision concerning Israel, and you'll see that they've been Anti for a long time. Also, see how much they scream and condemn about every single (even small) military action Israel (UN member) performs against Hamas (unrecognized), while they do nothing about enormous genocides in Africa, nor do they do anything about Hamas' missiles. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

UN is all the countries together... If the UN has a "anti-Israel" bias, it would be because the World would have a anti-Israel bias... And I don't buy it, wasn't in UN a helping force in creating Israel? If they truly were anti-Israel there would be sanctions and similar things for the genocidal tendencies preformed on the Palestinian people. — chandler — 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Gunness, spokesperson of the Unrwa have now stated to AFP that they are 99.9% after initial inverstigations that there were NO Hamas militiants in the school [17][18] [19]. Not looking good for Israel — chandler — 13:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ive been observing these conversations for quite some time, one small question. Why is it that Israel takes heat for hitting a school or mosque, when their intention was to kill terrorists. But when Hamas fires rockets into Israel (clearly not targeting military installations) and they hit civillians and schools and so on, it gets ignored. My main concern with these discussions is the ignorance of the intent. Hamas fired rockets into Israel as retaliation for a blockade, something lobbying or peaceful protests could have solved. Now when Israel defends itself they are called the oppressor. Maybe if there was some organized government in Gaza, this situation could be avoided. But the world, and apparently the fine editors of Wikipedia, are convinently forgetting and failing to mention that Hamas is a listed terrorist organization. Im seeing a lot of anti-Israel sentiment here hiding under the mask of "academia" (you 'scholars' know who you are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thucydidies (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's anti-Israel to now think it's ok for them to have a free range and do what ever they want against other peoples? Just so you know Hamas is the elected goverment in Gaza. And for everyone who considers Hamas a terrorist organisation it shouldn't come as a surprise if they preform acts of terror, but when a "free democratic country" sinks to that same level while still trying to hold on to the moral high ground, everyone won't stand for it. If any other country in the world bombed a school filled with refugee families killing the same number civilians, it would cause an out cry. So it's not anti-Israel, it's anti-hypocrisy and anti-killing human beings — chandler — 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In Gaza, ruled by the "freely elected" Hamas, People are being shot in public for being suspected in collaboration with Israel, no trail, no jury. This is why I also have to question the UN "reports" coming out of Gaza. I can only imagine what would happen to UNRWA personell there once UNRWA starts accusing the Hamas in war crimes (not to mention that many, if not most, UNRWA personell in Gaza are Palestinians)...--Omrim (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about the UN being "99.9 certain" that there were no militants inside the school has no source...the sources (128 at the current moment) leads to a dead link. If you really want to use that as proof that Israel had "intentionally" attacked civilians, you'd best find actual proof for it, cause right now it's not there. 99.237.129.197 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Yorky

You've been in the dark for long if you've missed it being reported all over... Or just have access to a pro-israeli propagated media outlet — chandler — 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The 99.9% issue is widely reported in "pro-israeli propagated media outlets" also. For ex: [20] --Omrim (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Im going to try to wrap my head around what Chandler just said... Because an organization claims it is, or is deems a terrorist organization it "shouldnt come to a suprise if they preform acts of terror" ?? Is that in anyway a rational response? Perhaps we should include in the article "Israel's response to Hamas was unjust because Hamas said they were terrorists, and therefore had the right to fire rockets at innocents." Essentially what you said is that it is acceptable for terrorists to kill civillians, because thats what they are there for. But it is unacceptable for a legitamate country to defend itself from terrorists because it risks collateral damage because said terrorists are hiding amongst civillians. As for the "democraticly elected government" I dont know if you could really call it that considering they killed all the opposition. Hussein and Castro were also democratically elected this way. And to get to the point of this whole rant, Read the article posted by Omrim, 2 of the bodies found were confirmed as members of Hamas. So much for the 99.9% As well as the fact that Israel has called a cease fire so supplies could be brought into Gaza, name me one war, ever, where the nation with the upper hand allowed its enemy to restock. Yes, Israel is quite the Ruthless oppressor. Thucydidies (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WRONG and ridiculous assertion, why dont you actual look up what you are talking about Palestinian legislative election, 2006 were described as the freest and fairest elections the arab world had ever seen. And because Israel confirms that 2 of the dead were Hamas militants does not make it so, and further does not make it so that they were engaged in hostilities at that point. Nableezy (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This article currently states that Hamas militia were firing mortars from inside the school grounds. If I'm reading this CNN report correctly, it seems that the Israelis are now officially saying that Hamas were "in the vicinity" of the school and "next to the wall" of the school but not necessarily inside the school compound itself. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, why don't we present the FULL statement by UNRWA? Gunness indeed said that UNRWA "is 99.9 percent certain there were no militants or military activity in its school" but immidiatelly added that "That does not necessarily contradict Israel's claim that the militants were operating close by".[21] How close is "close by" I wonder? Suddenly it is not such a "black and white" statement. Context, it is all about context. I think we should add the second part of his statement to the article as well.--Omrim (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And as per CNN report, maybe you should read it again. Palmor specifically says within "school grounds".--Omrim (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the CNN report Yigal Palmor clarified that "the immediate vicinity" meant "right next to the wall." But, he added, "What wall exactly I'm not in a position to say now.". BBC television news has tonight reported that Israeli government sources have "admitted privately" that Hamas were not operating from inside the school compound. I think there is more to be revealed about the facts of this incident if and when the 'fog of war' clears. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...and Mr Palmor himself has now appeared on BBC television to be given the full Paxo treatment. Palmor stated that a Hamas mortar team were within metres of the school compound wall but under questioning was unable to say on which side of the wall they were positioned. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as we can see from the 2:25 long video, it only takes a matter of minutes to launch rockets and disband. I am sure no one in the school even noticed. Chesdovi (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The video was from more than 1 yr ago, to use that as a basis for they were firing rockets from that location at a time when there were a mass amount of civilians taking refuge is unfounded, and to further use it as a justification for an attack on said location is also unfounded. Nableezy (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

1) regarding the "fairest elections the arab world has ever seen" need i remind you of what happened a few months later? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007). Funny how there is no Wikipedia page about how after Bush won in 2000 he took Al Gore to the top of the Empire State Building and threw him off of it... right. And yes the video was from a year ago, but they claim that they were being shot at then from tht location, and just because the video we see is old doesnt mean they are lying. Why would the Israeli military want to blow up a school? Also I read that due to a series of explosions after the school was hit, it is most likely they were storing ammunition there. I'll try to find that source. The Israeli military has said that the two militants were found, Hamas has a history of using civilian shields, the UN is saying they are "pretty sure" there was no one but there is still that .1%, from an objective standpoint it would make sense that Israel is telling the truth on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thucydidies (talk • contribs) 10:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The battle was a result of fatah and the PNA, and the rest of the world refusing to recognize a farily elected government, and attempting to usurp the powers of the legislature and PM to hold on to power, so no I dont need any reminder as to what happened later. Also, Israel has now admitted that there were no militants in the school and that there were no rockets being launched in the school, so not much of a leg to stand on. 99.9% does not translate to pretty sure, it would more likely be represented as almost certain. I dispute that Israel can be trusted any more than Hamas on this issue, and it does not make sense 'from an objective stanpoint' to assume that Israel is telling the truth here. Nableezy (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed that edit ninja tag

because it's non-standard and just created, and I don't think it applies. there are other perfectly good tags which express the same sentiments (I chose active discussion instead). and if for some reason that tag must be used, can we at least re-write it to sound more encyclopedic?

NO. Dickbag. We got plenty to worry about with you crying like a baby about what tags look like. Obviously people are fucking with the article. STFU. — unsigned comment by 155.45.81.25 _{(sig added by ThreeDee912)}

also if people are so worried about edit ninja, please realize that having edited "high-traffic" pages before, I can assure you this is currently the most watchlisted page by admins and concerned editors. so any serious edit warfare is being noticed and monitored. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to know we're on stage, Fancy Cat. :) By the way, somebody returned that ridiculous ninja banner. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A screenshot of the banner recently appeared on Digg, and a comment links to this discussion. Although humorous, I oppose using the Ninja tag because it uses Wikipedia jargon that other users may not understand, or may be misleading, as shows in the comments on Digg. Saying "Edit ninjas are attacking" is more confusing than "The neutrality of this article is disputed." Also, some of the above comments were all bunched up on a single line, unseparated and appeared as a single comment, so I separated them. — ThreeDee912(^talk/_contribs) 19:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas stealing aid supplies to sell to residents, and executes Palestinians cause of suspicion

AS you can see in the following article: Article Link

it should be published in the main article, some of the humanitarian aid that transfered from israel to gaza, was stolen by Hamas people to sell to resiences, in-orded to make money. to the other topic: (wich also should be published) Article Link

Hamas executed 6 Palestinians cause the were suspects for collaborating with israel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.176.252 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The information is already in (except that part about "stealing").VR _talk 23:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It would never do to accuse Hamas operatives of stealing, of course. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

If we want to say that, we should use the word "confiscation" or "siezure". "Stealing" has a moral connotation, that is not compatible with WP:NPOV.VR _talk 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I added it last night but for some reason its missing now???(Raphmam (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry but I have a huge problem with ynet, every article I've read that has been posted here by them is unapologetically pro-Israeli agression without even the slightest attempt to hide that bias. This aticle cites "reports" without mentioning by whom, for whom or giving anyway for any concerned party to verify those claims. I've also rarely seen any other news outlet pick up ynet articles for publication in their own press. I am VERY uncomfortable with these sorts of articles that are single sourced, without ANY attributions except references to "reports" by a paper that reads like a military mouthpiece. I think these incidents would be fine to report if we could find anything that supports the allegations in them. Perhaps someone else would like to comment on the neutrality of YNET as well (Let me note that there are twice as many articles from YNET than Al-Jazeera). Thrylos000 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing much wrong with ynet. In Israel,unlike Palestinian territories, media is very independent and freely and regularly criticizes the media. But to please you i had it reference jerusalem post.(Raphmam (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Note the entire information is not "missing" it has been moved to the splinter article Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.VR _talk 00:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think it is good over there but it should also be mentioned in this article under the humanitarian crisis and health sub section since it is very pertinent to the topics discussed. The fact that hamas terrorists are stealing aid is definitely worsening the humanitarian crisis and health crisis and therefore should definitely be mentioned. But please feel free to edit it to improve language and sentence structure (just don't erase it).(Raphmam (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

Ynet is undoubtedly a "home team" newspaper, but it's good enough to reference as "according to a report in Yediot Ahronot, xxxxx..." The real question is what is the significance of this stuff overall in the context of this article. There are much better sources on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, like major human rights orgs, UNRWA, etc. I don't think we should be making our own calls about what snippets from press reports are relevant; if, for example, UNRWA were to issue a press release criticizing attacks on aid workers, that would be a more significant source than some story on Ynet's website. I'm not sure what the relevance of the stuff about collaborators is, either.

By the way, the ratio of 2:1 for YNET/Jazeera is pretty well standard on our mideast pages. We almost always seem to rely on Israeli sources, and American sources with a pronounced leaning towards Israel, while I've had Israeli editors claim that foreign press like the BBC should be excluded entirely, since they are antisemitic or something. :| <eleland/talkedits> 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I hate it when people outsmart the UN reports. The cited papers are of the highest quality and most neutral in this topic. And the whole humanitarian crisis section is extracted from those UN reports (basically OCHA reports), except some quotes from Tzipi Livni that says the situation "is as should be" and Amr Moussa, Arab League chief administrative officer ones. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The UN reports is much neutral and trusted that an Israeli official who's even his name was not mentioned blaming Hamas for the health crisis. --Darwish07 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

+I've been careful enough not to blame anyone in the Humanitarian crisis section to stop playing this games of Israel said X and hamas said Y. This section describes the humanitarian crisis only. Your mentioned "accident" was/is moved to the January 6 section with rewording to be WP:NPOV. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about we try this for the next 24 hours

- Everyone with strong views in favour of one of the belligerents to stop reading media sources that favour their side and only read sources that favour the other side.

- Everyone spends 30 minutes considering that everything they hold to be obviously and self-evidently true may actually may be false or at least more complicated than they thought. We might learn something.

We can then all come back tomorrow and see if we are any better at producing factually accurate and neutral encyclopedia articles. Just a thought. It might work. You never know. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny fact that by observing this article alone, I've learned more about Israeli Journalism and media more than even the journals in my country. If this can state anything, it states the overwhelming imbalance of sources over here :). There's no article in Ynet, Jeruaslalem post, Haaretz, Aaretz shava, and even some all-Hebrew-no-English sources, that's not cited in here. And basically what all of those articles combined do is denying the responsibility of everything the other media reports (including the UN) and shifting it to Hamas. Hell, Hamas is not a saint and never will be, but this is not believable, cause Israel is absolutely not that saint too with this massacre occurring. I'll try to search for Hamas responses once I finish my stupid exams. I'm sorry if I ruined your project before it even starts, I just wanted to show that really if you assume I'm pro-Gaza, I've read my share of the Israeli sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Objective Palestinian journalism does not exist. The only agency that can pass as legitimate is Ma'an. And forgive me if I find it difficult to accept your equivalency between Hamas media sources, who tow the party line of an organization that officially sanctions the killing of Jews of any nationality. Israeli, like American media, runs the spectrum from left (Ha'Aretz/MSNBC), centre (Ynet/CNN), and right (Fox News/ Jpost) WanderSage (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're making blanked statements about the Palestinian media. Yes, there are extremists but you can not deny that there is a good portion of extremists on the Israeli side too. Read the offensive actions of Israeli settlers done to the Palestinians. What about the several fundamentalist religious groups that calls of killing all the Palestinians and making Israel from the "river to the river"?. How you're claiming such democracy in media while a big number of authors, Jewish authors, got labeled "self-hating jew" just because they're criticizing Israel?. Believe me Sir, extremes on both sides exists to a very noticeable level. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That does not deny that in terms of quality, the Israeli media are more professional. But if you're going to blend the Arabic media in the mix, then the situation of "professionalism" get balanced very well between both sides. Alarabiya is considered left and Aljazeera is considered right and they are both too professional. Aljazeera even have an English channel that attracted the best skills from BBC, CNN and other agencies. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Arabic media in general, the language has no bearing on the objectivity. But a nation's media tends to reflect the society as a whole, and the Palestinian media is very sectarian and factionalized, and in the Gaza Strip, an independent media outlet does not exist. WanderSage (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe cause you really didn't see how their situation is? Those people are the most suffering people in the world in every aspect of respectful life. You want them to discuss peace and love and those "fancy" things while they're killed and injured by thousands every year? I'm sorry, you're attacking them based on the output of their crappy situation, not because of the roots of this situation. I'm sure if you were there, you'll hate everyone around including life itself. Aah, and let's not forget that those people got evacuated by force and extreme Jewish groups from their cities after 1948. Check the UN reports instead of the Israeli media and make your own decisions. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care what the roots of the Palestinian media's lack of non-objectivity is, and neither does Wikipedia's NPOV policy. WanderSage (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, it would be so much better if everyone here could try set their own views to one side, be acutely aware of their own systemic bias, conciously take measures to counter that bias, make sure they really understand what 'objectivity' means, comply with Wiki rules regarding reliable sources etc and focus on improving the article....for the sake of the children....(you know the rest of the song)....while there are some left. Thinking that one set of media sources are 'biased' and another set of media sources are 'objective' at times like this is not smart given the current situation/restrictions. Secondly, both sides officially sanction the killing of each other for reasons that they think are perfectly rational, justified and no doubt objective e.g. civilians probably served in the army so it's okay, civilians were next to a bad guy so it's okay and so on while reasoning people around the world look on in astonishment perhaps thinking 'Hey, maybe I could find out more about this massacre/brave-and-righteous-operation in Wikipedia'. Meanwhile back at the article weapons of mass systemic bias proliferate. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, We'll stop. Thank you. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, did I see you calling what happens a "massacre"? I really hope not, because otherwise it'd mean that you're implying that Israel is intentionally killing a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people (i.e., butchering civilians on purpose). -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems we'll all get kicked from Wikipedia very soon. Oh yes, I meant that. You're calling this Humanitarian crisis and all of those deaths and serious injuries un-intentional !? I'll make the claim that you believe in your government statements more than what should be, Sir. I believe in numbers and neutral reports, not in Hamas or Israel claims. And those numbers and this crisis says exactly what you proposed in your definition. It's not a hard lesson to Hamas, as Shimon Peres said, it's a hard lesson to Gazans for choosing Hamas. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's make a deal to stop discussing those issues here. Reply to my above statement if you like cause it won't be fair if you did not. After that neither me or you will continue this subsection discussion and return back to constructive editing. Deal :)? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. But I do want to respond; The deaths and injuries of civilians are not intentional. Yes. They can't be intentional, because IDF doesn't target civilians. There are many deaths and injuries for Hamas combatants, and they ARE being targeted. Unfortunately, there are civilians hurt in the way (because of Hamas' tactics), but these aren't intentional because, again, they weren't targetted on purpose. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomaed your post above seems to me confrontational toward an editor who has shown restraint toward you, let's try and work together. RomaC (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, perhaps I should have phrased it otherwise, but what's done is done... -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 08:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the issue of Hamas stealing/confiscating aid coming into Gaza is an important issue that should be noted here. Another ref about it (from a German news agency): here. Rabend (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would just remind everybody that any source is biased, per definition. Obviously, some more than others. Moreover, some sources are more reliable than others. Unless we have reason to suspect a source to be unreliable, there is no reason not to quote it.
Specifically, I do not see any reason not to use Israeli media as sources. They are probably biased, but they are reliable. Please note that bias might go either way in Israel, as Israelis are strongly polarised into 'left' and 'right'. The same can not be said of all Palestinian and Arab sources, who are in general strongly biased, and sometimes outright unreliable. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel compelled to wholeheartedly agree with the above statement. Every source you read is going to have a bias based on their particula frame of reference. Getting into a debate about which is more biased is pointless because obviously the overly biased sources are probably going to be unreliable which is the real issue as mentioned above. And one more specific mention for this debate of biased sources, and this goes out to all who believe that UN is the end-all-be-all of unbiased sources, the UN is widely know for having a negative bias towards Israel. Dont believe it? Look at this article by UN Watch, an organization that observes the UN and its actions. http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm

No one is perfect. Just because an organization is supergovernmental doesnt mean it is free from bias or the final word. Relidc (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that the truth has a bias against Israel. I mean surely the truth is anti-semitic as well. Just because supporters of Israel claim that someone or something has an anti-Israel bias does not make it so. There is no way I am going to listen to un watch, ngo monitor, camera, or any of these other groups who claim that the UN or HRW or AI are biased against Israel, when these groups are so clearly biased for Israel. Nableezy (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, good phrase Nableezy :D. All sources are biased, but there are only a very few institutions that exist in order to create non-partisan consensus. The UN is one. As such I think it carries so much weight as a source that criticisms of it by some Israeli pressure group are of negligible relevance to an article on the general I/P conflict. UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee. PS I'd like to thank Darwish07 for his hard work and sourcing wisdom.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikamatsu (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Got to love the backlash. First, I would like to point out that I was not directing that comment towards Darwish, whos work is through and informative. I have just found that people generally regard the word of the UN as gospel. Also I was not claiming that the UN is not a credible source, just that it, like all others, needs to be scanned for bias and just because the letters UN are attatched does not mean we shouldnt read it with the same academic rigor given to other articles. And saying the truth has a bias against Israel is just uncalled for. In this situation, as well as almost all others, the truth is ambiguous and it depends what side of the fence (that was not a distasteful pun about the situation... but ha.) you are on. And to Nableezy and Chikamatsu, it would be worthwhile to read the article as opposed to just writing it off because it is affiliated with Israel. While there is a bias, as always, they do present facts and even reading it through a very skeptical lens it still raises some important questions. Relidc (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did read the article, utter nonsense. You may be able to say that the general assembly has a bias against Israel, which I don't agree with but the point can be made. But to say that the UN itself has a bias against Israel, on the basis of a clearly pro-Israeli groups accusation, is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, my goal is not to claim the world is out to get Israel, but rather to make sure people know they need to challange even what could be considered a completely objective source. The most objective thing you can find is an encyclopedia. Go find a recent edition and see if it uses any of the diction/rhetoric (I know encyclopedias cant talk.) that many UN statements use. Also, we need to realize that many of the statements released by the UN are statements from a person representative of the UN. And when representing the UN you are representing both Israel and every Arab nation that wishes its demise, so a personal bias will have an effect. Relidc (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire

In the background section it states that during the ceasefire that started on June 19 2008: "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." This sentence is misleading and does not sufficiently describe the situation in Gaza during this period.

What might be relevant is of course the actual number of rockets fired by Hamas during the effective ceasefire. The Israel MFA provides data documenting rockets and mortars launched from Gaza by month during 2008. It shows clearly that rocket fired from Gaza drop precipitously during the ceasefire until Israel killed 6 Hamas members who were involved in creating a tunnel that Israel claimed was going to be used abduct Israeli soldiers.

Rockets and Mortars Launched from Gaza May-Nov '08

Type	May	June 1-18	June 18-30	July	August	September	October	November
Rockets	206	153	5	4	8	1	1	125
Mortar	149	84	3	8	3	3	0	71

A total of 36 rockets/mortars were launched from Jun 18 to the end of Oct, compared to 1894 launches in the four months and a half months before the ceasefire (Feb to Jun 18). This represents a 98% drop off in attacks. Hamas denied involvement in these few attacks and condemned the splinter organizations not respecting the ceasefire.

I propose that the MFA chart referenced in the EI article or a table based on the chart be included in the background section to improve and elaborate on the statement ""Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." Thrylos000 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd support that. It seems like just an extension of a rather brief statement, and has a good amount of information. Just be sure to add sources.Jeztah (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in my earlier post. I can't make edits as i'm not yet autoconfirmed. Someone else needs to add this. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with the original statements. Several rockets were launched during the ceasefire, before and after the Israeli operation. The current wording seems to reflect exactly what you were saying. Also, if you're going to cite something, try using a source that doesn't "seek to expose the Jewish lobby". This isn't Stormfrontpedia WanderSage (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The original statement is not sufficiently elaborate. The current wording leaves out quite a bit as my original post states clearly and thoroughly. The source cited in my post is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and what I present are their statistics. The fact that I came across this IMFA generated chart in EI is of no consequence what so ever to my proposal. Thrylos000 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thrylos000. Where would you like this placed. In the Background or Timeline section or elsewhere? (2) Is there any detailed information for a balancing chart of Israeli firing into, or operations within, the Gaza Strip for the same period? Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, I don't have that information unfortunately. However, my proposed addition expands vastly on the small statement on that ambiguously states "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." without showing that a huge drop off occured as per Hamas's pledge to uphold the ceasefire. This, in my opinion, is a crucial detail in the lead up to the war since Israel singled out rocket fire as their reason for attacking Gaza. If you could find information on Israeli military incursions into Gaza during this time period I would be happy to include them. I suspect there weren't many as both sides seemed to be upholding the truce and when Israel did carry out an attack on Hamas on Nov 4 there was an immediate response. Thrylos000 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see that this chart is beginning since May. So, we're going to detail the issues of the Gaza blockade and other Israeli offensive actions to Gaza since May, won't we? Really, if this will be allowed to be in the article, there's a lot of other files about the Israeli's actions in this period in Gaza to be opened. Do we really want to go into this? --Darwish07 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is entitled "Background" and alludes the the facts I've cited in my proposal. It has the statement: "Rocket and mortar attacks continued, at a rate of several rockets per month, with no one taking responsibility." I'm sorry but I do not think this is an appropriate level of detail and does not make clear at all that rocket fire from Gaza all but stopped until the incident on Nov 4. I would argue that this is an incredibly important point given that Israel cites rocket fire as the reason they invaded Gaza. I'm not sure how these details can be overlooked in a good attempt to establish the background of the conflict.

Clearly, the current statement does not say enough. Itt emphasizes the continuity of attacks which is very misleading. In fact there was a drastic discontinuity in rockets launched, a 98% drop that lasted until Israel breached the ceasefire on Nov 4 as I've documented above. The chart begins in may to demonstrate the drastic drop in rockets. It wouldn't make much sense to just show the months of the ceasefire completely out of context. Thrylos000 (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifics on Weaponry

"Qassam" and "(Hamas) rocket" are mentioned a total of 35 times in the article. The Israeli side has F-16 fighter jets and Apache attack helicopters, this is not specified in the article. Will correct this now, if editors object to using specific information, perhaps we can delete "Qassam" as well. RomaC (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the name, but not "rocket", and dosagree 100% with naming hardware as per my post in the archives. A generic descriptor is ok, but a specific type isn't, except when central to the sentence, and I still haven't seen one where "F-16" cant be fighter-bomber or "Qassam" be "rocket". We shouldn't be using formulation like "Hama's rockets" anyways, its bad english, better say "Hamas launched rockets" etc. --Cerejota (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, "rocket" is general and "Qassam" is specific and that's better for an encyclopedia that has hyperlinks to more-detailed articles. Anyway was planning to fix this by adding "F-16" and "Apache", but I see now that the information on IDF attacks on Gaza has been removed from the conflict article, to a new "timeline" article. This seems like a whitewashing to me, as the article is now mostly about what happened before the time period that the article is supposed to cover. RomaC (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC: read what I wrote, we actually, agree. I mean you just said what I said! Surely you read what I wrote, right?--Cerejota (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Cerejota, I did read what you wrote. I believe we disagree, don't we? As I understand it you favor generic terms and I believe Wiki should rather (on first reference) provide (wikified) specific information. So if I had the specific information I would use Qassam and F-16 jet fighter rather than rocket and aircraft for sure. This is because these details can bring greater understanding to inquiring minds! RomaC (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources ometimes refer to the various types of rockets by their type names. As in "a Qassam fell" or "a Grad fell". That doesn't mean we have to use the same language, but it does make our job a little harder. Debresser (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC's point is a very serious one. I've noted this frequently, and call it privately the 'subliminal hammering effect', one of the subtler forms of getting around NPOV. It should certainly be attended to, perhaps by noting the frequency of terms denoting Israeli firepower. Generally, a specific term that figures in the reports should be mentioned in the lead and text, and then a generic term employed thereafter. And one should be careful to balance the language to avoid tilting the narrative towards an embedded editorial verdict.Nishidani (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a non-issue. I see no reason why a generic can't be used instead of a brand name, even if a source use it, and I have seen no one insisting hardware names be used. If people start with bullshit narrow interpretations nobody else in Wikipedia follows just to filibuster crap, we'll take it to ArbCom and that is that. Ultimately, also, consensus is what you edit. That said, I find your failure to assume good faith disturbing. Few editors will try to pull crap like that and survive long. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's generally wise not to make WP:AGF accusations while using intemperate language yourself. If 'Qassam' 'rocket' etc.are used 35 times, then one makes a frequency count for the equally violent bombing record by the IDF inside the Gaza Strip over the same period, just to ensure that the text is not being edited to tilt perceptions. That happens to be what editors are obliged to do.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that in Israel, Qassam has become a synecdoche for "rocket"? Is not an evil POV conspiracy (for the most part ;) but a reflection of sytemic bias. That is why it is important to AGF: bias can creep in unintemtionally, because what certain people see as common knowledge, others don't. You get my point? That said, the solution is not to add more useless information, but revert and rewrite the biased passages. Sometimes these pages are a reflection of the conflict, with some launching rhetorical F-16s and others screaming speech Qassams... ;)--Cerejota (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why mention conspiracy? I was disconcerted that Roma had counted 35 mentions of Qassam, as though the text were mimicking the American and Israeli press, which has (there are detailed press organisation analyses of this) been consistently silent about Israeli assaults on the Strip, and yet highlights every rocket fired off. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that while Qassam rockets are the most common, they are not the only type of rocket being launched by Hamas. Being specific helps distinguish Quassams from Katyushas and RPGs. Similarly, on the Israeli side, a fighter-bomber might be a F-16, but it could also be a F-15I.Blackeagle (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of hardware for editing reasons: only by reading websites and watching tv I have learned that AH-1 Cobras,F-15s, Heron UAVs, Shaldag and Super Dvora patrol boats, SAAR 4.5 class missile boats, SAAR 5 class corvetes, Merkava Mark 4 battle tanks, Tiger APC's, Hammer jeeps and MANY MANY more kinds of hardware are used by the IDF in this conflict. Should we include them all? Generic names are fine, and it convey the message needed to be conveyed.--Omrim (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think RomaC and Nishidani have valid points. My understanding of what Nishidani means by "subliminal hammering" is that when the weapons of one side are specified repeatedly and disproportionately, they take on a buzzword status and therefore assume more prominence and fearsomeness in the minds of the public. Agree as per Omrim that specialist facts should be kept to a minimum.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, 門左衛門. That's exactly my point.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is very good, it's a little messy but very neutral

I think you're doing a pretty good job. T.R. 87.59.76.192 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So do I. We certainly try. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to chime in and say that you're all doing a great job - at first I was worried that this article (like others on wp) would be completely biased in favor of the IDF but so far it looks great. Keep up the good work! N.D.

Thanks. Not often we users get compliments. Feel free to drop suggestions.VR _talk 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! We aim to please :) --03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darwish07 (talk • contribs)

Removed POV images

I removed images that I thought were propaganda. I also doubt highly that they have proper copyrights. So I think I did right. V. Joe (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You did right I think. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Shock victims = wounded ?

If we are including shock victims as part of the Israeli wounded, then we should include the shock victims on the Palestinian side, which would put the Palestinian wounded at over 1 million. The Israeli civilian wounded are far less then the 119 specified in this article, lets be honest.

Do you have any verifiable source of a total number of Israeli wounded that doesn't include shock victims? Blackeagle (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not, I could try to find some research, but unfortunately, when Israel posts its wounded, they always include shock victims, which is absolutely ridiculous. But no one can say that the Palestinian shock victims is not over 1 million, considering there is no place in Gaza that is not populated. I'm not suggesting that we say that Palestinian shock victims number 1 million, but we could put a little note in parenthesis saying that the wounded figure for Palestinians is far higher when considering including shock victims.

Unless you can find a verifiable source saying that, we can't put it in the article. Blackeagle (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Some idea of how hasbara techniques have been used in the past to close the gaping casualty gap (since there are never figures for Palestinian shock victims) can be garnered reading Belén Fernández, 'The Trauma Vortex,' Counterpunch, January 7, 2009. Not appropriate to this article though. (Wiki on the 2006 Lebanese-Israeli war gives figures) Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Since when does shock count as an injury?! Injury as in the Palestinian side counts as your f'ing arm being blasted off your body, a cut in your head, etc. Counting the "shocked" israelis as injured people just diminish the severity of what an injury is and is even ludicrous when you compare to the real injuries happening on the Palestinian side. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so why don't we just say there is no source for Israeli injured. As said above, the shocked in Gaza must be more than 1m.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

But we do have a source for Israeli injured, it's just counted differently than the Palestinian figures. I don't think we should be leaving out information that we do have just because the two sources aren't entirely consistent. Just note the differences in the way injuries are tallied and leave both in there (which is pretty much what we're doing now). Blackeagle (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Israeli injury count as well, and in an earlier discussion on the matter strongly advocated that we note that Israel counts shock victims as injuries. During the war with Hizbullah 65% of the injured were people "treated for shock and anxiety" only 2% of the injured were reported as having "severe" or "moderate" injuries. They clearly inflate the number. The problem of course is that they DO provide a number which is why I suggest we take their number and note that it includes shock victims and maybe reference the count from the conflict with Lebanon. Thrylos000 (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well just a quick search on google news found this[22] Jerusalem Post story. It is two days old but lists 39 wounded (29 of those "slightly") as well as 144 treated for shock. It is slightly out of date today but good enough for inclusion I think. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I support updating the injury count using this new source. It is actually more recent than the IMFA source which is dated Jan 4. Someone please make the necessary changes reporting only the injured and not shock victims. It should read something like this: 39 wounded (10 seriously, 29 lightly) and cite the JP. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Shock not an injury? That is a new one. It can kill you, can't it? V. Joe (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can. For example, a 14-year old Palestinian girl died of a heart attack due to the shock induced by Israeli bombings. [23]. Tiamut^talk 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samouni family

The Samouni family section only has one source and I can't access it. Can someone please substantiate this section or cut it if no substantiation exists. Remember (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gaza medics describe horror of strike which killed 70

• 'Under the rubble, we found arms, legs, and half a head'

Gaza hospital overwhelmed by dead, wounded

• Israel strike kills up to 60 members of one family

Do you not have access to google? 82.102.241.96 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All sources mentioned rely on the same source, namely a Palestinian source. For now this is not substantiated enough to be stated as a fact. It definitely should stay, but should be clearly attributed to "Palestinian sources". Right now it isn't.--Omrim (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that. But I should say that only the two Tim Butcher stories, both from the Telegraph, relate a story like what we have in the article. The earlier stories don't have the same sort of narrative at all. The Irish Times story says hospital officials believe nine were killed. The AP (IHT) story names only four but says that one man believed others were buried alive under the rubble. The NY Times story (below) says 11 killed.

It might just be that Butcher has the jump on this story but for now he's really our only source for the kind of information that's in the article. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on Fatah supporters

The article makes claims about serious attacks on Fatah supporters on Gaza by Hamas e.g. 25 killed, people having their legs or hands broken. This is based on one article in the Jerusalem Post, which quotes Fatah in Ramallah, and "sources close to Hamas", this does not amount to clear evidence in support of these allegations. If this was true we might expect to have heard more about this, there is no mention of this in independent sources or from sources on the ground in Gaza. I suggest that this should not be in the article unless better sourced. PatGallacher (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Canadian sources? [24] Better yet, what about the New York Times? [25]--Omrim (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is really the same article which appeared in 2 different publications. Nothing in this article supports a figure of 25 people killed in this way. PatGallacher (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the paragraph currently explaining the Jersusalem Post viewpoint is prolix and needs to be shortened. While the claim that Hamas is attacking supposed collaborators appears in multiple sources, I agree, that the casualty figure needs to be sourced better. Jacob2718 (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israelis directly targetting Gazan medics tending to the injured

In the words of a Gazan medic "I was not able to count them accurately because there was not much time and we were looking for wounded people.

"We found fifteen people still alive but injured so we took them in the ambulances.

"I could see an Israeli army bulldozer knocking down houses nearby but we ran out of time and the Israeli soldiers started shooting at us.

"We had to leave about eight injured people behind because we could not get to them and it was no longer safe for us to stay. Mr Shaheen was in a convoy led by a jeep from the International Committee of the Red Cross that made its way down war-damaged tracks past demolished houses to the town of Zeitoun

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4162193/Gaza-medics-describe-horror-of-strike-which-killed-70.html

Again, I am asking for someone to add this information for me because for some reason there is no edit feature on this article. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

When you say we should add that "Israelis directly targetting Gazan medics tending to the injured", do you mean as a fact? i.e. that you KNOW that Israel is intentionally targeting medics? Just curious...--Omrim (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they started shooting at the medics meaning they turned their guns on the medics (who are clearly identifiable) and pulled their triggers raining bullets on the unarmed medics. It is no surprise, they have a history of shooting at unarmed people including medics, reporters, photographers, elderly women, children, etc. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Fisk is a distinguished journalist, historian, and Arabist with three decades of intimate on-site knowledge of the Middle East. He has a long record of cross-checking with the local population their various versions of what happened or hit them. It is therefore worth keeping his remarks today in mind, though this is not material for inclusion on this page. Robert Fisk, ‘ Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask,’ The Independent, Wednesday, 7 January 2009. I add this, Omrim, after glancing at your otherwise reasonable request that one keep in mind that all articles on the Samouni family go back to Palestinian sources. Palestinians are often suspected of being unreliable about their own sufferings. But, as Fisk notes, Israel has a considerable record of fudging on these issues. Of 150 odd instances of unexplained killings of Palestinian civilians on the West Bank in one year which b'tselem asked the IDF to open an inquiry on, only four were examined, etc.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubts regrding Fisks journalistic qualities. Only thing I am saying is that even the telegraph clearly states that all the information is coming from Palestinian sources, and we should do the same. Even the telegraph doesn't state the "intention" as a fact. All I'm saying is that it should read "Palestinian sources stated.... bla bla bla", and not "Israel intentionaly is trageting bla bla bla bla". (Now, unrelated to the article, and very related to my own POV: Let me come clear and be as honest as I can. I have a personal issue with these assertions accusing Israel of intentional targeting of civilians, since I know FOR A FACT they are not true. These terrible events may have indeed happened, but as a former IDF officer (and I hope I didn't open a pandora box by admitting to that fact, and that you'll still be able to assume my good faith), I know for a fact that the IDF is not targeting civilians intentionally as a matter of policy), IDF "secretive" (as someone called it) rules of engagement are all about protecting civilians in combat zones. Thus, as a former officer (which was able to go through a long service without firing a single shot in battle- something I am very proud of) I take personal offence every time Isreali soldiers are accused of targeting civilians with intent.--Omrim (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear: this is not to say that such terrible and shameful things never happen (see kfar Kassem massacre), but rather that they are NOT IDF policy.--Omrim (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should be representing the sources, if the source says that a Palestinian medic said such and such we should say the same. But it goes both ways, just as we should not assume that everything a Palestinian source says about this is true, we should not assume as Israeli sources. If the IDF says that there were shot fired from a location, we should say that 'The IDF says . . .' or if the foreign ministry says such and such, we should say 'the Isreali MFA says.' As far as the Israeli officer goes, Ill keep the faith, and im proud of you that you didnt fire a shot too :). But while I don't assume that Israeli soldiers always target civilians with intent, I likewise dont assume that they never do. I have seen too many videos of Israeli soldiers behaving in a brutal matter to Palestinians who are already on their knees with their hands up to think that it never happens. And likewise I dont think that a pilot fires on a building with civilians knowing it is full of them and only them, but I dont that their superiors would never order it without their knowledge. Atrocities happen, oftentimes unintentionally, others with full intent, like My Lai Massacre, Sabra and Shatila massacre for which high ranking officers were held at least indirectly responsible, and many others. I think that majority of soldiers in any army want to server their country and their people, including those with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but there are others, on all sides, who just want to shoot and kill people. Nableezy (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you. As far as the videos you are talking about, I have seen to many of them myself, and as far as I'm concerned, such people should be behind bars. Unfortunately, only a few of them are (but that's an issue for another article). But that, in no way, changes may stance with respect to our current issue, i.e. that we should closely adhere to the source.--Omrim (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Rabend (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samouni Family were told to evacuate

by Israeli soldiers from their building to another, which they did. Then the Israelis launched a missile towards the building they were taking refuge at massacring and wounding the large family. Please mention this detail. "The Samouni family knew they were in danger. They had been calling the Red Cross for two days, they said, begging to be taken out of Zeitoun, a poor area in eastern Gaza City that is considered a stronghold of Hamas. No rescuers came. Instead, Israeli soldiers entered their building late Sunday night and told them to evacuate to another building. They did. But at 6 a.m. on Monday, when a missile fired by an Israeli warplane struck the relatives’ house in which they had taken shelter, there was nowhere to run. " http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/middleeast/06scene.html?_r=1&hp --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are relentless. Agian, these are Palestinian sources ascribing hidden motives to Israeli soldiers. We may add facts to the article, or claimes of what the facts are. But claims regarding what one thinks the fact are, that's just to much. Should I continue?--Omrim (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're blind and evil. Nytimes reported this and I rather believe the Palestinians who see what is going on than the Israelid who are creating the bloodfest. Who would deny that the Israelis slaughtered the Samouni family, only you. --Learsi si natas (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Learsi si natas. Keep that language up and you will be prompty banned, certainly from editing I/P articles, and I would support any such move if you don't desist. Omrim is making a technical point. You have no right to judge his motives. I say this as a strong pro-Palestinian editor.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, read what I said above, before resorting to personal insults. I am not saying we should ignore the issue, but rather we should state it is coming form Palestinian sources, That is it. Now drink something cold and relax.--Omrim (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, why not mention what the family itself had to say about the incident (read the article all through) "Among the survivors of the Samouni family, opinions were divided. Some blessed the resistance. But Hamada Al-Samouni, 28, who was lightly wounded by the Israeli rocket and was clearly still in shock, said this was all happening “because of the rockets” fired by Hamas. He said he had seen the bodies of eight Hamas fighters dressed in civilian clothing lying in the streets around Zeitoun. They had been lying there for two days and nobody had come to collect them, he said."--Omrim (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article also says:

'A study about to be published in Israel by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, an independent research group that has close ties to the Israeli military establishment and is supported by the American Jewish Congress, presents Hamas as having methodically built its military infrastructure in the heart of population centers.'

People who write, scandalized, about this seem to forget the history of Jewish resistance in Jerusalem in 1948, where it was policy to defend and mount weaponry from civilian houses. They also forget that no army that conceives of itself as a resistance army goes out and sets up, on flat ground, to enable a clear shoot for the enemy, its defensive salients. I've been all through Gaza when it was still a beautiful, unoccupied and quiet area. No army of any description would do otherwise than organize what it regards as a defence against a siege, anywhere else than in the areas its soldiers come from, where some cover exists. Thus a military banality has become an excuse for calling Hamas militants (formerly Hezbollah militants) cowards. Nishidani (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A second point. The so-called, but inappropriate, 'Georgian strategy' wrongly attributed uniquely now to Israel, does the same thing in reverse. The besieger never exposes his own troops to mortal peril by making them push on where civilians and fighters in the resistance reside in the same area. You clear it, irrespective of the distinction, by forward bombing wherever shooting is observed. It is technically impossible to defend one's troops and distinguish civilians from soldiers in any form of urban warfare.Nishidani (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I wrote up a section or two that we should be representing the sources when making any claims about what happened. Here the source does not qualify this passage:

Instead, Israeli soldiers entered their building late Sunday night and told them to evacuate to another building. They did. But at 6 a.m. on Monday, when a missile fired by an Israeli warplane struck the relatives’ house in which they had taken shelter, there was nowhere to run. Eleven members of the extended Samouni family were killed and 26 wounded, according to witnesses and hospital officials, with five children age 4 and under among the dead.

with any qualifications as to the source, it reports it as fact. We should certainly mind where these 'facts' are coming from, but I think we can rely upon the judgment of the RS as to what happened if we dont have conflicting accounts. Where the source X says that such and such happened according to Palestinian Y or Israeli Z, attribute such to Y or Z, sourced to X. When they dont qualify what they report, just source it to X. I don't see why this has to be so hard. Nableezy (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as far as mentioning what the victims have to say as to the cause, I don't think that is necessary. They are notable in that they were in such a situation, but to say that there notable in providing cause for the hostilities is lil far I think. We have many more notable people placing blame at Hamas for provoking Israel into such a response, including the president of Egypt. (I have to capitalize Egypt out of my own nationalism, but not president :)) Nableezy (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But we certainly shouldn't ascribe any motives to the Israeli soldiers who told them to evacuate, or that they targeted the next home because the family was there. All the source says is that they were told to evacuate to another building, it doesn't say that they specified a building to go to. I actually don't think any of this needs to be included in the article, it describes a minor thing in an incident in which 11 members of single family, including 5 young children, were killed. I think it sufficient to say that this happened and not try to blame the Israelis for trying to intentionally target an entire family, because the source doesn't say that at all. Nableezy (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of a bereaved relative as to who is to blame for the offensive is no more notable than any other member of the public -- especially since about 1 in 50 Gazans must have been wounded by now and more bereaved-- how could we quote them all? Fortunately, in any case, since I strongly suspect this msmber of the Samouni family has been misquoted.--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

More specific use of reference

in the article it says:

Israel and outside observers allege that [[Iran]] appears to be using Hamas militants in Gaza as proxies to terrorise Israel. They claim that Iran supplied Hamas with components to allow it to upgrade the range and accuracy of its rockets that it was firing into Israel.<ref>''[[New York Times]]'', "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/opinion/06tue1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iran%20in%20gaza&st=cse Incursion Into Gaza]", January 5, 2009; Mazetti, Mark, "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/world/middleeast/01rockets.html?scp=1&sq=iran%20in%20gaza%20improve%20rockets&st=cse Striking Deep Into Israel, Hamas Employs an Upgraded Arsenal]", ''[[New York Times]]'', December 31, 2008.</ref>

But the NY times article mentions that the "outside observers" are American officials.

Well, stick to the source, and specify 'Some Israeli and American sources'. Are we now obliged to note that many observers remark that the United States finances, and supplies Israel with, a considerable part of the military technology, such as cluster bombs, which Israel, as in 2006, then went and threw, to the extent of some 2 million, all over southern Lebanon, in violation of agreements with the supplier and international law?, just as the weaponry of assault used over the Gaza strip in large part comes as a gift or is purchased on very favourable terms, from the US?Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

NY Times article exaggerates Rockets fired during truce

In the background page someone has cited an NYT article with the following excerpt:

"The New York Times summed up the situation leading to the complete breakdown of the cease-fire and the dramatic increase in hostilities thus: "Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’ main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 700 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity.[41]"

According the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza after the truce ranged between 2-12 per month, not going over 15 even a single time. In fact this table summarizes the data provided by the IMFA over the period of the truce and just before.

Rockets and Mortars Launched from Gaza May-Nov '08

Type	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	June 1-18	June 18-30	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec
Rockets	136	228	103	373	206	153	5	4	8	1	1	125	361
Mortar	241	257	196	145	149	84	3	8	3	3	1	68	241

Reference: The Hamas terror war against Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 01-01-2009. See Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip subsection.

As this table demonstrates total rocket attacks (mortar+rocket) never went above 12 and decreased to 2 for the month of october, just before Israel raided armed Hamas members on Nov 4.

I propose that that source is scrapped since it is innacurate accorind the IMFA itself. Instead it should state the data presented by the IMFA and give context for how drastic the drop in rocket attacks were. A possible revision:

"A total of 37 rockets were launched from Jun 18 to the end of October, which represents a 98 percent drop from the previous four and a half months during which 1894 rockets had been launched. Following Israel's Nov 4 attack that killed six Hamas operatives, rocket fire resumed from Gaza. "

The NYT article is exagerating the the rocket fire by over a factor of two with regards to official Israeli records. This fact calls for a revision along the lines of my proposal. (See #Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire, for my first and more comprehensive critique of our coverage in the Background) Thrylos000 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very helpful table. One row should be added, however, showing significant events and their dates -- e.g., "26 Jun: Truce begins". I would like to see it in the "background" section, or else in a separate analysis/summary section. What do others think? NonZionist (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't noting the truce (Jun 18) sufficient? I expanded the table to include the entire year of 2008 since the data is available. I believe there is also a page documenting the rockets fired in 2008 that might benefit from the inclusion of this table. Thrylos000 (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The text is too long, it is inexact, and therefore misleading, and, though the NYT is, in the abstract RS, it has a poor record in this area of reporting (it even had to censure its own staff after the Iraq imbroglio). There is no reason why the NYTs should earn such space in the article. Especially since Editor and Publisher, which monitors the US press, gives it a poor rating on reporting on Gaza. I.e.

'NEW YORK (Commentary) Israel launched its much-anticipated invasion of Gaza on Saturday. For over a week, U.S. media had provided largely one-sided coverage of the conflict, with little editorializing or commentary arguing against broader Israeli actions.Most notably, after more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject.Amazingly, the paper has kept that silence going in Sunday's and even Monday's paper, with no editorial or columnist comment on the Israeli invasion -- beyond a hawkish pro-invasion contribution by William Kristol. It's as if the Times is waiting for the invasion to be over and adapt its position to the outcome. Greg Mitchell Media Commentary Muted as Israel Invades - 'NYT' Fails to Editorialize, in Editor and Publisher January 05, 2009.

This is a 'prestige newspapers back us' dollop, and privileges the snippet not for its accuracy, but because of the newspaper's standing. It adds nothing to our understanding, and only confuses it, and should be removed, as indirect editorializing. Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As the paragraph stands now, the source given to cite the number of rockets etc. is actually an op-ed by Jimmy Carter, and in it, there is no mention at all about the number of rockets/mortars fired except that it actually decreased during the cease-fire.

I agree that the NY times is not a 'bad' or untrustworthy source, but it seems as if Israel's military is in a much better position to know how many rockets/mortars actually were fired.

Why as we speak this has not been corrected is beyond my patience. Good dedication Thrylos... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptonio (talk • contribs) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

wrong information - shock victims

in the table it says 119 injured (not include shock victims). that information is incorrect

most of the wounded are soldiers (over 60) and the rest, are civillians that suffered injuries due to rocket attackts.

according to israeli news station two days ago, there are over 400 shock victims, please, remove the +shock victims, this information is wrong.

See this article in the JP from Jan 6. It states that only 39 civlians have been injured (10 moderately to seriously, 29 slightly). I urge someone to update the injury count to reflect this as the IMFA data is from Jan 4 and clearly includes shock victims. Thrylos000 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Jan 6 2009 article:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167267556&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

I will update the chart. I always try to use the best available data from the most reliable sources. This looks better than the Jan 4, 2009 IMFA info. Because it is more specific in giving separate numbers for physically wounded and psychologically wounded. Since I am using UN numbers for Palestinian physically wounded in the chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter, thanking you for revising the infobox with regards to Israeli injured. I think, however, that oyu should not include the "shock victims" in the total injured count. The JP article does not refer to them as being injured and our palestinian numbers as has been mentioned repeatedly has no shock victim component. I think it would be more accurate to report it as the following:

39 civilians injured (10 moderatley to seriously, 29 slightly). Additionally, 144 civilians are reported as suffering from shock. This follows the JP source very closely and makes some crucial distinctions. It also is the most symmetrical way of reporting injuries since Palestinian injuries do not include shock victims. Thrylos000 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Or we could write Palestinian wounded as "3,085 physically injured" as I wrote before it was reverted to only "3,085". --Timeshifter (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds awkard and the fact that injuries represent physical traumas is almost taken for granted. I think Israel's practice of noting shock victims is somewhat unorthodox here so it should receive the unique formatting. I think if we are going to mention shock victims in the info box they should be mentioned separately and not aggregated into total injuries. This is the most balanced way to do it, I believe. Thrylos000 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF forces

Any info on IDF forces currently deployed such as amounts of brigades et al?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and find. I haven't seen any dramatic change in numbers deployed.VR _talk 02:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Cluster Bombs and White Phosphorus controversy

According with Haaretz cluster bombs have been used

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052331.html The ground invasion was preceded by large-scale artillery shelling from around 4 P.M., intended to "soften" the targets as artillery batteries deployed along the Strip in recent days began bombarding Hamas targets and open areas near the border. Hundreds of shells were fired, including cluster bombs aimed at open areas

The Times, about the controversial use of White Phosphorus in Gaza http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece

--Bentaguayre (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. It's already included in the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Bringing it here, unless a substantial number of sources also note it, would be amounting to giving undue weight to IDF's critics.VR _talk 02:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that say that israel's use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous (they deny phosphorus claims) are a violation of international law, so it could go in that sections in this article. Nableezy (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism edit - When will those edits stop!?

User:Raphmam deleted the whole Samouni family paragraph without discussion here and even without typing anything in the edit summary. I consider this super vandalism edit to promote a POV --Darwish07 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, i didn't know things like that had to be discussed, i'm new to wikipedia. I'll start a discussion now. i also dont know what an edit summary is. and i dont have a POV.(Raphmam (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Hi Raphmam, it's fine no problem.

• The edit summary is the small box underneath your edit window where you put a summary of your edits to lets others know what has happened by only checking the page log.
• It's advised to always fill this edit summary with useful info describing your edits.
• When doing big edits like deleting a full paragraph, discuss it here first and say your points so we can have a discussion to see if this proposed big edit is worthwhile or not.
• POV is when doing certain edits that transform the article from WP:NPOV/neutral tone to a state that promotes a single point of view (e.g. Israeli or Hamas views only). Thank you --Darwish07 (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that's the pot calling the kettle fuchsia.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Samouni family incident Relevant to highlights of timeline of war.????

When I was reading through the timeline section I realized that the samouni family incident was mentioned. I think this topic is definitely relevant but should be kept in the moved timeline article. Since this incident was not a very big part of the war I wondered why it was even mentioned there, and figured that someone added it as an act of POV. i took it off immediately. now i see that it's back on and that some users feel it is necessary that it stays. so lets leave this to a debate. Is the samouni family sub section one of the highlights of the war and therefore should be included in the main article page of the gaza war or should it just stay in the specific article made for it called Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict????(Raphmam (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

I added it back immediately cause it was discussed in two different sections above and you removed it without discussion. Not cause I favor a POV or not. You've done the right thing by discussing the article in here now :). --Darwish07 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal thinking is that this article should highlight the most recent events until the conflict has concluded, and that information be shifted to the timeline article as time goes on. But for what has happened in say the past 2 days, I think should be included in this article. Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So then your saying it will be moved tomorrow or in 2 days. then i have your word and we'll do that.(Raphmam (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Nableezy, I think this is a good way of approaching this and similar issues. Thrylos000 (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely seems to be less notable than most of our other subheadings in that section (definitely belongs on the timeline page though). Blackeagle (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It has received major press coverage around the world, so I would call it notable, and I would say feel free to move it in a couple of days. If anybody feels otherwise, speak up. Nableezy (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's notable, just not as notable as the other things listed there. I think the timeline section of this article should stick to the big stuff, like the start of the ground invasion, or the first temporary humanitarian truce. The other stuff can go in the separate timeline article. Blackeagle (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but after a couple of days. I would think people coming here are looking for the major points across the conflict and what is happening, and I think this still qualifies for what is happening. The timeline to me should cover what has happened that doesnt qualify for 'the big stuff' which I agree this wont fit that description. Nableezy (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to bias the article too much towards events of the moment. Even though its constantly getting updated I think articles on current events should be written with the long view in mind. What should an encyclopedia article on this topic look like ten years from now? I don't think it would really include the Samouni family incident in the main article. Blackeagle (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But we are not 10 years from now, we are far from seeing the long view. Right now the events are constantly changing and I wouldn't even expect 10 years from now that the timeline article would include the incident, so I dont think we can write with the long view in mind. Nableezy (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about our ability to write that 10 year article now, but I think we should try our best. Blackeagle (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Palestinian Children causalities (100 killed, ~1000 injured, ~10,000 traumatized) on the info box

Latest January 7 UN report states at least 101 children died, ~1000 injured and ~10,000 traumatized. I suggest adding this data to the infobox. This is scary and critical information. --Darwish07 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That info may already be old info the author was only then mentioning. I see varying numbers from 100 to over 200 children. I don't know what to believe or trust. This AP article is fairly recent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8212020

It says 130 children. I would like to know the upper age limit used by the various sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera says 219. Al-Mezan says 123. UN says 101. I'm not sure the age limits. I would post a range of 101-219 and cite accordingly. Thrylos000 (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers of "traumatized" Gazans could balance the Israeli figures for "shock"? RomaC (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible, but how we'll know the full number of traumatized people in Gaza? My gut tells me that more than 50% of the population will be traumatized, especially cause 56% of the population is already children. I don't have sources. Do you? --Darwish07 (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean to tell me you want a breakdown between adults and children in the infobox? Don't you think that's overkill? I'd be down with it in the casualties section, though. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett85's edit 'summing wounded Israeli soldiers from sources'

I disagree with Bobafett's methodology for determing injured Israeli soldiers. See this edit: (All incidents of israeli soldiers wounded have been reported on this site, when you sum up the wounded from all of the reports you get at least 78 wounded). I do not think we should try and sum statistics for disparate sources, we can wait for a source that states a single number and cite that. Summing across sources is a sloppy practice and complicates verifiability and increases chance of making a factual error. Please revert this until at least until this method is approved by consensus Thrylos000 (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

and WP:SYNTH says we dont do this, you want them added it up find a source that does it. Nableezy (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli military wounded

For the number of wounded I see this page recently linked in the infobox:

• http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/oper/default.htm

There was this edit summary: "All incidents of israeli soldiers wounded have been reported on this site, when you sum up the wounded from all of the reports you get at least 78 wounded"

Is there any page on that site that gives a total? I want to link to it. I also want to use it to update the chart: File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png --Timeshifter (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Background Section Length

The Background section seems to be getting rather large. While giving people context is good, we've got links to four separate articles on previous events and the larger conflict. Could we perhaps trim the section to a shorter length (moving removed material into the main articles if it doesn't exist there already)? Blackeagle (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim Barzak

The AP reporter who has authored many of the articles on the Gaza assault/massacre, many articles of which we have cited here and followed along, has had his home destroyed by Israelis. I think this event is notable should we mention it? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_a_reporter_s_story --Learsi si natas (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem all that notable to me. I'm sure many houses have been destroyed, his isn't really any more notable than the others just because he happens to write for the AP. Blackeagle (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What about saying something like: many homes were destroyed, including the home of AP reporter (name)? As long as there is a Wiki-appropriate citation for this, it is part of this incident and should be included. As usual, we should not censure, but allow the reader to draw her/his own conclusions. Tell someone (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

In the "Reactions" heading, why is there a prose section detailing the reactions, followed by a list of NGOs and the UN and their individual bulleted reactions? Some parts of the two sections even overlap - The bulleted section is almost identical to parts found in on International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Propose we delete the Bulleted section underneath the prose, and let the separate link to the sub-article cover the rest. Tismondo (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the section in question (based on a lack of anyone bothering to engage in the issue here - I assume that means there's no objection) The information is found verbatim on the International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict page, which you can still click-through at the top of the reactions section. This should keep the main page a little more neat and tidy (It's getting too big, too fast!) Tismondo (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "Gaza Massacre" refer to the whole conflict or only the first day's bombing?

The term "Gaza Massacre" is a blatant POV violation. But instead of going that subjective road, I would like to point out that that there are no reliable sources for the article's claim. The article claims that the whole entire conflict is called the "Gaza Massacre". Although there are sources supporting the term for the first day's actions, none of the sources support the term's use for the entire conflict. Indeed, as the conflict continues, this singular term becomes more and more anachronistic. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You removed a huge chunk of text without first waiting for responses to your talk post. I don't think that's appropriate. In any case I hardly think the people terming this conflict the "Gaza Massacre" would stop calling it such as things get WORSE in Gaza. I don't think someone should have to provide sources each and every day to be convincing. Regardless, your unilateral edit is highly inappropriate in my opinion and I urge someone to revert it to its original form until we have a chance to discuss the matter. Thrylos000 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide one source that refers to the entire conflict as the Gaza Massacre. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish you should have reverted her/his last edit completely. --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Learsi: While you're contributing to this discussion, can you please provide one reliable source that refers to the entire conflict as the "Gaza Massacre"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

here you go; [26]; [27]; and many more in http://news.google.com/news?q=%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%B1%D8%A9+%D8%BA%D8%B2%D8%A9&ie=UTF-8&nolr=1&sa=N&start=10 Nableezy (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

and before you say these are not reliable, surely we can trust arab media to accurately report what arabs are calling something. Nableezy (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, don't you have google? Here is a search:http://news.google.com/news?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22gaza+massacre%22&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title and here are 3 random articles pulled off the first page of hits from that search:

1. Qazi blasts Muslim rulers’ mum over Gaza massacre The News International, Pakistan - Jan 6, 2009
2. Members of Turkish-Israeli group express anger over Gaza massacre Today's Zaman, Turkey - 4 hours ago
3. PML-N assails government for ‘soft’ stance on Gaza massacre The Post, Pakistan - Jan 6, 2009

Very irresponsible edit on your part in my opinion. You clearly didn't even try to justify the edit with a simple google search. Thrylos000 (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted.

Brewcrewer: the sources do not say they refer only to the initial part of the conflict, they all unambiguously refer to the "attacks", "conflict", "strikes", with no time limit either way. Just because the sources are from the beginning of the conflict (and some are from 4-5 days after), no one can draw a novel conclusion external to the sources that claims they "expired" - which is what you are doing. As to the phrase being POV, it is, but it is not POV introduced by editors: it is neutrally presented as a highly notable POV on the events: the same way we present "Operation Cast Lead". I find your reading of NPOV highly novel, and unheard off, and your removal of well sourced, entirely relevant material unproductive. We do not censor. That said we must be careful not to give undue weight, so this sentence and an additional mention in reactions should be sufficient. Sorry to add to the pile on, but one never removes extremely well sourced material that has been in place for 24 hours with such a flimsy argument. I am sorry the term offends you, but it is a highly verifiable fact that this is a widely held opinion in the Arab world. Take it up with them, not us. --Cerejota (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said Cerejota and thank you for being a voice of reason here Sean.hoyland - talk 04:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the references I used are of a very high quality ones showing that the operation was referred to as "massacre" by:

• Arab states of the Persian Gulf
• Arab league
• the 6060th UN security council meeting, when Arab nations appealed to stop the "terrible massacre". (using Libya as a representative)
• the Islamic conference - OIC
• and some Israeli Arabs.

I've also shown on the lead discussion page a sample of Arabic references with English translation that clearly use the Gazza massacre term. People, what can I do more?? --Darwish07 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And the cited references mentioned the whole operation, not the first day only, as a massacre. Go and check the sources. Are you trying to convince me that when Arabs appealed to the UN security council to end the "terrible massacre", they meant to end "the first day"? Does my last statement even made sense? No, ofcourse not. Cause they, obviously, mean the whole operation. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable sources?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Read my points above. Yes, they are reliable sources. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide one link to a reliable english language source that supports this contentious and controversial bolded assertion in the lede?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's POV, but at the same time it doesn't seem to have been universally or even generally adopted as a name across the Arab world. Of course you can find sources in the Arabic media that refer to it as the "Gaza massacre", but there are also sources that refer to it as the "Gaza slaughter", "Gaza carnage" etc. etc. Right now, it's the "Gaza massacre" not the "Gaza Massacre". WanderSage (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We need reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The lead claims: "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab World.[32][33][34][35][31] I checked each one.

• 31. [28] does not say "massacre" anywhere on the page
• 32. From Fox News does not refer to it as "The Gaza Massacre" but quotes "This terrible massacre would not have happened if the Palestinian people were united behind one leadership speaking in one voice," he said at the league meeting's opening." ""If it weren't for the Arab impotence, and the participation of some Arab governments into this conspiracy, the Zionists wouldn't have dared to carry out this massacre," the letter read."
• 33. [29] Title:Gulf leaders tell Israel to end Gaza "massacres"-- massacres is in "scare quotes" and is the only reference to massacre on the page.
• 34. [30] quoted: "The latest Israeli massacre is a war crime and shows what little regard Israel has for international law and the 4th Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in time of war,” OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said in a statement." "The GCC chief said the Israeli massacre reflected that the Jewish state had no intention to have peace." "Al-Attiyah also denounced the silence of the international community, especially the US, toward the Israeli massacre in Gaza. "
• 35. [31] Title: Israeli Arabs in Sakhnin protest Gaza massacre quote from article "Furthermore, Mohammad Barakeh, chairman of the Hadash party, stated that the protest is important, as it represents an advanced stage of the struggle of the Arab population, and the forces for peace against the massacres conducted by the Israeli Army against the people of Gaza.

With the exception of one headline, the last, not one of these stories referred to "the Gaza Massacre" as it is written in the lede. It is clear the Arabs are talking about a generic massacre or massacres. The only time " Gaza Massacre" is capitalized to indicate a proper noun is when it is used in a headline. In other words, the references do not support the claim. The best you could accurately say is that many Arabs and Arab states are accusing Israel of a massacre(s). Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The first link is working. If you checked the reference link itself, It says click on S/PV.6060 cause the UN website refuse to respond to the direct PDF link. You need to click on the PDF link from their page. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WanderSage, even if your point is true. As said by the references, this is what the major Arab organizations referred to the operation in their official statements. Second, in the UN security council meetings, politicians really choose their statements very well. And they called it a "terrible massacre" there. Go and check the meeting transcript. And your argument is already false anyway cause not all the Israeli sources call the attacks "Operation Cast Lead" all the time. --Darwish07 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hold up, we are trying to identify what Arabs are calling the conflict, why can we not rely on Arabic sources. That is a ridiculous idea. Nableezy (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They may call it a "terrible massacre" but they do not refer to it as "The Gaza Massacre" as claimed in the lede. Simple as that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The arabic sources, translated call it the gaza massacre, capitalization is irrelevant in arabic, see Yom Kippur War for how the words october war in arabic are translated October War in English. Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If a bolded, contentious, and controversial assertion in placed in the lede with the argument that it is a notable term, its notability as a term should be supported by atleast one english language reliable source. The fact that no such source can be presented is a clear indication of the term's lack of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How when the Arabs refer to the conflict as a "terrible massacre" in the UN council meeting in front of the whole world, does not satisfy your notability criteria? Yes, the transcript is in English. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The article says they call it the "Gaza massacre" not the "terrible massacre". Besides, one speech in the UN is not an indication that the term is notable. Thirdly, we need a reliable source. Making a claim that the speech is indicative of notability is still WP:SYNTH and unacceptable as WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Lead discussion page, I've provided many arabic references calling the operation "The Gaza Massacre":

• | مجزرة قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلي بقطاع غزة Aljazeera: "Israeli occupation massacre in Gaza"
• |رابطة العالم الإسلامي تدين "المحرقة" الإسرائيلية بغزة Aljazeera: "OIC criticizes the Gaza Holocaust"
• | تداعيات مجزرة غزة ومواقف الأطراف Al-Quds Journal(Jerusalem): "The Gazza massacre consequences and involved parties situations"
• | البابا شنودة يدعو للوبي عربي بالغرب لمنع مجزرة غزة Egypt News: "Pope Shnoda [Egypt's Pope] calls for an Arabic lobby to stop the Gazza massacre"
• | ضحايا مجزرة غزة يقارب الـ3 آلاف في اليوم التاسع للعدوان Arab news network (Moheet): "Gazza massacre Causalities close to 3 thousand on the ninth day"
• | غزة في اليوم الثامن من استمرار مجزرة غزة Jordan News Network: "Continuity of the Gazzza massacre"
• |خبراء: مجزرة غزة لن تستفز صواريخ حزب الله IslamOnline: "Experts: The Gazza massacre will not induce Hizballah rockets"
• | جمعية السلامة الخيرية تبدأ بتوزيع مساعدات طبية عاجلة لجرحى مجزرة غزة "Salama institute starts distributing humanitarian aid to Gazza massacre casualties"
• And there's no capitalization in Arabic anyway. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it contentious or controversial what Arabs call the conflict. The words they use may be controversial, but the fact they are using cannot be. You are trying to censor information from the encyclopedia on the basis that you think that they should not be calling it this, because you dont think it is a massacre. Stop this bullshit argument over whether or not Arabs are calling it 'The Gaza Massacre,' youve been proven wrong on this point. Nableezy (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, it's only 'contentious, and controversial' because you and others are making it so and I struggle to understand why. This street to street fighting over words and pussyfooting around is becoming silly. Reliable sources call it a massacre. If they called it something that you find ludicrous like 'a holocaust in a ghetto having an uprising' that is what should go in the article. This has been said so many times here, it's not about what we think about the words. Surely you have been given plenty of reliable sources that use the term gaza massacre by now. Have a holiday, Jordan's nice. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. No one denies that the Arabs are calling it a massacre. Just as they are calling Israel "the Zionist enemy" -- but whoever translated those statements should have used caps in English if they meant it to be understood as the "name" of a particular episode. This is "a" massacre in Gaza, according to Arabs, but not "The Gaza Massacre". To the Arabs, this is just another everyday massacre by the Zionist enemy on the Gazan people. To Israel, it is self-defense. "The Gaza Massacre" is not a parallelism to "Operation Cast Lead." If you are going to put the Arab view of a massacre in the lead, Israel's position must be made clear as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's tenuous objecting on a matter of whether or not capitalization has been used, but here's an English-language source where it is [32] (Note Gulf News style is sentence case in headlines, but the right side section title for the conflict itself uses Caps: "Gaza Massacre"). RomaC (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

really here [33] And you have been given multiple arabic sources that call it 'The Gaza Massacre,' so yes they are calling 'Operation Cast Lead' 'The Gaza Massacre'. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add this as a reference to let this topic rest in piece. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer argument is false anyway. He want all the sources to call it "Gaza Massacre" and not "the Massacre", or "terrible Massacre". This is false logic. IF THE ARABS ARE ARE SAYING "MASSACRE", THEN THEY OBVIOUSLY MEAN "Gaza Massacre". You want all of them to say "Gaza + Massacre" and not only "Massacre" to make you happy? AND EVEN most of the Israeli sources DO NOT CALL THE ATTACKS "Operation Cast Lead" ALL THE TIME. THEY CALL IT "Cast Lead", "the operation", "the attacks" and other stuff too. SO IF PEOPLE SAID AT THE United Nations "Terrible Massacre", THEY MEAN "Terrible Gaza Massacre". THIS IS OBVIOUS. IT'S CALLED "MASSACRE" IN THE ARAB MEDIA more than it's called "Operation Cast Lead" IN THE ISRAELI MEDIA. It does not mean cause Israel started the attacks, and by virtue using a "military name" standard, that it has a monopoly on the name. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Darwish, please don't let this reduce you to SHOUTING, thanks. RomaC (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So to be clear and end this: By using the statements Brecrewer quoted from the cited references himself:

• "This terrible massacre" == "This terrible Gaza massacre"
• "this massacre" == this Gaza massacre
• "The latest Israeli massacre" == The latest massacre caused by Israel in Gaza == The latest Gaza massacre
• "Gaza massacre" == "Gaza massacre" (Will we need to argue over this?)
• Done

--Darwish07 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer is arguing a point and that's fine, anyway notwithstanding the above post, we can see here [34] that RS&V are satisfied on the question, and I hope Brewcrewer will acknowledge this. Actually the only problem I see with the sentence "The conflict has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab World." is the word "conflict," because "Gaza Massacre" is being more accurately applied to the the Israeli offensive. Should we change the wording to: "The Israeli offensive has been called the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in the Arab World."? RomaC (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

sabr ya khoui :), I dont think we even need all this, we have multiple sources that call it 'the gaza massacre' in the arab media, and as this is a proper noun it would then be translated in English 'The Gaza Massacre'. This shouldnt even be a debate, it is beyond ridiculous that we are even talking about this. Nableezy (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? The only thing the sources really demonstrate is that beyond throwing in the word “massacre” people in the Arab word do NOT refer to this event in any consistent manner. I agree with brewcrew and tundrabuggy (I tried to make this point yesterday). At minimum it should be written in lower case. Andi Hofer 08:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "Gaza Massacre" fully identifies the current attacks on the Arabic media, so it's doing a job like the one done by "Operation Cast Lead". The difference is that the first was born bottom-up, while the second is born upside-down. Not all the Israeli media use "Operation cast lead" all the time, and so not all Arabic media use "Gaza massacre" all the time. but What's important is that when those terms are used, at least in current days, we know exactly what events are they pointing at. If it walks, and eats like a duck, then it's a duck :). So "Gazza Massacre" is the neutralizing side of Operation Cast Lead --Darwish07 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to understand the distinction between "Gaza massacre" and "Gaza Massacre". I'm presuming none of us arguing the point are proficient in Arabic, but perhaps it might be necessary to look at the original Arabic. "Operation Cast Lead" is the name given by the IDF to specifically refer to the original operation, "al-Nakhba" is the name specifically given to refer to the 1948 War of Independence by the Arabic world. These are proper nouns. It seems in this case that "massacre" is just being used generically to describe the conflict in some sectors of the Arabic media. It seems to me if it had become a proper noun worthy of mention and bolding, it would be something like al-*insert word for massacre* *insert word for Gaza as a adjective*. WanderSage (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, why should it have to be al-*? Arabic translation of "Massacre of black Saturday" can not be in Arabic as Al-"...", so as Yom Kippur War which its translation has no Al-"...". As I've said, there's no capitals in Arabic. The whole idea of Al-".." is that a single noun in arabic can not stand on its own. It's either prefixed with "Al" (al-magzara) or suffixed with another noun in the sentence (magzara Gaza). Our current case is the second case. And it's critical to know that those two cases are mutually exclusive. so it's illegal to have (al-magzara Gaza). --Darwish07 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that there are no capitals in Arabic, I was stressing what the difference would be in an English translation. Thus far, none of your sources lead anyone to believe that massacre is used as a proper noun. And yes, Massacre of Black Sunday would need a definite article, set up as Massacre Al-Saturday Black. Unless you can provide conclusive evidence that "The Gaza Massacre" is used in the same context in the Arab world as "al-Nakhba" is to describe the 1948 war, it should be un-bolded. WanderSage (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WanderSage and others, do we really want to debate whether or not, in the Arab world, "Gaza Massacre" refers to the current events in Gaza, by arguing about how capitalization has been applied in English-language translations? Really? (sigh...) Ok, right side of the Gulf News page, here[35] -- "Gaza Massacre" Written In Caps. (Other Gulf News headlines are sentence case.) RomaC (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in Arabic that says that something must have al-* to satisfy being something equivalent to a capital noun. NO relation, whatsoever. Battle of Mu'tah, Battle of Tabouk, Yom Kippur War and lots of others have no "Al". Previous sentence examples prove that your theory is false. I told you a noun need "Al" or another noun (modaf elih) after it to be complete. Our case is the second. Yom Kippur War is translated to "October War"; a clear example of the second case I'm talking about which also applies to "Gazza Massacre". You're treating only one possible case (al-nakba) as the truth, which is false. War in Darfur is bold without a reference saying "The war is called war in Darfur". In the Iraq War, it's told that it's also known as "Second Gulf War" and "Occupation of Iraq" without references saying "The Iraq war is also called Occupation of Iraq", It was bolded just because cited references called it "Occupation of Iraq". You're using fancy-looking-outside false-inside logic. Given references say clearly that it's identified as a massacre in the Arab world, please stop those games. --Darwish07 (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling

What is wrong with you people? Omrim's horribly typed statement has been in the article for hours and I thought someone was going to fix it, I come back and it is still there? FIX IT!! Again, I cannot edit the article because my account is not auto confirmed yet. Please fix "Acoording to their statemets, About..." in the section entitled Samouni family. --Learsi si natas (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

done and chill Nableezy (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos. Sorry about that. And, Learsi si natas, you really shouldn't take it personally. You can at the least be tolerant to people (such as myself) for whom English is not mother tongue. Lucky for us, this is wiki, so I can assume your good faith. Otherwise I would have suspected that you have a problem with me, rather than with my typos.--Omrim (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Symmetrical reporting of Injuries

The infobox currently reads: Wounded: 78 soldiers,[12][13] 183 civilians (includes 144 shock victims)[14][15] for Israel.

I do not agree that the best format for reporting injuries would include shock victims. The most current source we cite is from the JP. It says: "Four Israelis have been killed, 10 moderately to seriously wounded, and 29 slightly wounded. Another 144 have been treated for shock." I think we ought to report the Israeli injured in line with their statement with something like Wounded: 39 civilians (10 moderateley to seriously, 29 slightly)

I am not against including shock victims in the article; perhaps, they would be better placed in the casualties section and not the infobox, since we of course have no estimates of "shocked" Palestinians. We could alternatively have add a note in the infobox stating something like: "Additionally, 144 civilians are reported as suffering from shock."

This follows the JP source very closely and makes some crucial distinctions. It also is the most symmetrical way of reporting injuries since Palestinian injuries do not include shock victims. Thrylos000 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrylos000 (talk • contribs)

I agree. Nableezy (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas vs. UN civilian casualty tally

I seperated the Hamas and UN casualty numbers to reflect the fact that, from reading the sources, the 350 number is "according to Palestinian (Ministry of Health) officials..." and the UN is still giving the media the "25%" number. Since the 25% figure has been cited by the UN since almost the begining of the conflict, if someone can find a new source which lists the UN as giving a different figure, please update it. Also, I'd like to suggest that once we find an updated UN figure, to move it in front of the Hamas figure, on the grounds that it is the most objective of the two. WanderSage (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the UN has not, even once, cited a total count of civilian casualties that included men unless it cited the MoH directly. Even so I'm not sure it has done this. It consistently refers to women and children in its reports. I'm not sure why the media outlets haven't picked up on this. I've been screaming this for several days and made a long post about it a while back I can dig up that thoroughly examined the issue. I think its pretty significant that reports read (in the past) civilians when they should have read women and children. I've stopped pressing the issue since most places are now citing the MoH. Thrylos000 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A dated figure from the UN is still much more valuable than an up to date number from an agency which has a political stake in exaggerating civilian casualties. We won't have an accurated number for weeks, most likely, until the dust settles and the claims can be varified and scrutinized, but for now the UN/MoH dichotomy is fine in the civilian toll, it would just be nice to have an solid UN figure. WanderSage (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not 'a Hamas figure', it is a figure from the Palestinian ministry of health and should be reported as that. They are in the best position to report and we already say that the numbers cannot be independently verified. As such, I think it should be given in front of the UN figure. This unfounded attack on the Palestinian sources is repeated and getting increasingly tiresome. Why exactly must we dispute anything a Palestinian says about what is happening in front of their eyes yet accept as unequivocal truth whatever Israeli sources report? Nableezy (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the Ministry of Health that we are sourcing is based in Gaza, and therefore under the auspices of Hamas. You speak as if there is any political plurality in Gaza post-Hamas. Remember the part about all of their political rivals being killed or exiled? Are you trying to convince us that Hamas purged all political posts and and ministries, but decided to leave the MoH alone and out of their sphere of influence? WanderSage (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point, WanderSage. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When the UN refers to children as casualties, what ages are they talking about? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the NY Times [36](considered a Reliable Source)

Casualty figures are hard to verify, but officials at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and the Gazan Ministry of Health said 683 Palestinians had died since the conflict began Dec. 27, including 218 children and 90 women. They said 3,085 had been wounded. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza said 130 children age 16 or under had died. The United Nations estimated a few days ago that a quarter of the dead were civilians. But Palestinian residents and Israeli officials say that Hamas is tending its own wounded in separate medical centers, not in public hospitals, and that it is difficult to know the number of dead Hamas fighters, many of whom were not wearing uniforms.

Maybe we should wait with these figures until the dust clears. We had the same accusations the world over in Jenin, and elsewhere, which embarrassed the media because they had uncritically accepted Palestinian numbers. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont care that they are 'under the auspices of Hamas' though not true it is irrelevant. The reason it is not ture is that it is under the auspices of the PNA. Even if it was 'under the auspices of Hamas' all the Israeli reports are under the auspices of the Israeli govt. You cannot just assume Palestinian sources are lying and Israeli ones are truthful. It is attributed as it should be and presented as it should be. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didnt see ref to 'Gazan Ministy of Health' but the above point remains valid. Nableezy (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The NYT calls it the Gazan ministry of health but their website lists itsels as being the Palestinian Ministry of Health and that is also how the UN refers to them. The NYT is incorrectly refering to it as the "Gazan Ministry of Health." Thrylos000 (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated source quoting the chief of emergency and ambulance services in the Palestinian Health ministry, Mo'aweya Hassanein, is listing the number of casualties as 763 killed, 3,120 wounded. He also said that: "Many people are missing, most probably under the rubble of dozens of destroyed houses," and added that 375 Palestinians who are in critical condition need urgent medical treatment.

I also find Tundrabuggy's statements above to be offensive. Israel has banned foreign media from entering Gaza since November last year. If we cannot rely on Palestinian casualty counts, we cannot report on casualties, as there are few other people there to tell us what is going on. It also seems clear that the figures of the Palestinian health ministry are conservative and based on the number of corpses collected at hospitals and by medical workers, and not on how many they estimate to by lying under the rubble. After the confusion in casualty figures during the Jenin massacre where estimates were made before bodies could be collected, they do not want to make the same mistake. Tiamut^talk 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories

First off, someone that is good with categories should probably take a look at this article and narrow down and/or delete and/or add some. But also, could an admin change these category names please: Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --> Category:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict --> Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It's just a matter of changing hyphens to en dashes. Thanks. LonelyMarble (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A better forum for this change might be Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

lebanon

should this be included or wait until people connect this to the current conflict? [37] Nableezy (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an AP article that links it a bit more specifically [38] I think some sort of mention is appropriate, but it probably ought to be pretty brief until we know more about who fired and whether there will be more. Blackeagle (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn, this really sucks... I hope this fighting doesn't spread into Lebanon now. What a disaster Thrylos000 (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that we could include a section along the lines as 'Potential for wider hostilities' or something like that, but I leave it to yall, im high as hell and dont want to think about war right now. Peace and happiness all, be back if I wake up in the morning :) Nableezy (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is an attack by Hizbollah, then it deserves a seperate subsection. If it's just a unsanctioned attack by a Palestinian faction in Lebanon, maybe just mention it in the timeline article. WanderSage (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the current situation in southern Lebanon, this is most likely an attack by some Palestinian organization, approved by Hizbollah (no one lifts a rock there without their approval) but not carried out by Hizbollah. Right now I would not make a separate section for it, unless it escalates. Rabend (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Drastically Biased

This article is drastically biased both in its language use, its content, and even its appearance (sentences hidden in paragraphs). (unsigned)

<rant and steam>The article started out quite neutrally (with obvious violators being removed every now and then). But recently, it really did become biased. Every Palestinian propaganda is quoted as "fact", while every statement by Israel and IDF sounds like some "unbased excuse". I know that there are many people here who are trying to keep this article about facts and not about opinions, but when the Anti-Israeli propaganda is spread so wide in the eyes of the world-wide public (because showing dead bodies is what wins public opinion, and Hamas know that very well and use it, and anything else is non relevant), the bias startes spreading here too. It's frustrating. According to the article and the discussions, it's perfectly normal saying that IDF is intentionally trying to butcher children/women/civilians/doctors/etc., but on any claim that Hamas is using civilians as human shields, exaggerating numbers, Pallywood and so on, is a huge violation of neutrality. Bleh. I'm done with this article too. </rant and steam> -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 10:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, I thought (unsigned) meant that the article was biased toward Israel. That's certainly how it reads to me. Maybe you miss those images of the IAF war machines, Nomaed? Trachys (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A) You see what you want to see and read what you want to read. I didn't see any hint about what bias this unsigned person meant. Unless you can point me towards it, you have no case.

B) I followed your "Wikipedia contributions", and your anti-Israeli bias can be seen from miles, with small words changes that make sentences sound completely different.

C) You completely ignored all that I wrote, and decided to mock me. Get lost.

-Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

I must agree with Nomaed. The article has seen dramatic improvement with respect to its neutrality in the past 72 hrs. Suddenly, in the last 24 hrs, this trend was drastically reversed. People are deleting hard-reaching-consensus sections with no discussion. For example, the entire background section, quoting numerous sources with respect to truce violations by both sides was deleted, and is now relying on one(!) source which is not even a news article, but rather a news analysis. Instead bringing facts forward, our article turned to be an "analysis". Analysts opinions are starting to be portrayed as facts. This is troubling.--Omrim (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note From Commentor

I am trying not to address in this comment the question of whether certain arguments are correct or incorrect. There are many paces where i believe statement are wrong but i am not addressing those. I am addressing the lack of balance in the article and explaining what other information should be included and how certain changes should be made.

Situation in Sderot and Other Israeli Cities

More information should be given on the nature of the rockets being fired into Sderot and other Israeli cities. While the article does an excellent job of creating sympathy for the residents of Gaza, it does not address the durress under which the Israelis live. Each day when rockets are fired they have only seconds to find cover. They are advised to keep windows down and seatbelts off to be able to hear any approaching rockets or mortar shells and escape quickly. The issue of escalation -- Hamas's improvement of their rockets is not addressed. Nor are the details such as those found here: [39] which explain that there are far more rockets and mortar shells being fired than stated in this article. In the past 3 years there were over 6000 ([40])

There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia detailing the rocket attacks going back to 2001. There are also details of Qassam rocket capabilities. I think the scope of this article should be restricted to the current Israeli military offensive ('Operation Cast Lead'). It would be too easy for the focus of the article to be lost if we try and cover the entire Arab/Israeli conflict going back decades. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Language Bias

Quoting the Article: "However, Israel only modestly increased levels of goods shipments into Gaza."

Only modestly? Who is the author to judge? Israel is sending aid to people who fire rockets into their land ad yet it is referred to as only modest.

Quoting the Article: "In August 2008, 10 to 30 were fired, and by September only 5 to 10 were."

This comment is so understated it's almost comical. only 5 to 10? 5 to 10 rockets? What if Cuba fired 5 to 10 rockets into Florida? How would the US respond?

Quoting the Article: "Hamas called the claims "baseless".[145] Residents of the neighborhood that the two Hamas fighters (brothers mad Abu Asker and Hassan Abu Asker) identified as attacking Israeli troops and killed were in the area at the time of the attack. But the residents also said the mortar fire had not come from the school compound, but from elsewhere in the neighborhood."

Whether it is the definition or not, people tend to associate the term "claim" with the idea of saying something with strong possibility it is false while the term "said" connotes nothing in particular. Why does the author say Israel "claimed" 4 times in 1 paragraph and yet when two random brothers, simply local residents make claims, those are given the same if not more credit. the brothers "said" they did not "claim."

Strongly agree with the first two issues. The third issue is less clear to me but I can see your point. I doubt anyone would object to replacing "said" with "claim" to make it consistent. Andi Hofer 08:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you guys step back a bit, look at things from a wider perspective and check that you have enough context to make judgements. For example, Israel is not providing aid. Aid is being supplied by various bodies like the UN etc and Israel has a legal obligation under international humanitarian law to allow it in all the time without interruption. I could go on but I won't. I hope you see my point which is that your criticisms might be based on insufficient information leading to systemic bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Whats wrong with combating blatant editorializing? The source says "In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10." Whoever wrote that bit deliberately inserted the word "only." Same goes for the :only modest increase" editorial. I do agree that the language needs to be cleaned up so that it becomes more clear that Israel is only allowing these shipments and not actually providing them.--Andi Hofer (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with combating blatant editorializing Andi. I'm all for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sean, you are quoting international law as if Israel is obliged by it to open its crossings to Gaza. This would have been the case if Israel would still be an occupying force in Gaza, an issue which is higly controversial even among Int'l law scholars. And if you don't mind to "sit back and look at the whole picture" yourself, there is a very valid point in noting that even though Israel is in a battle with the de-facto government of Gaza, the borders between the two remain open. This, I think, is quite odd and it shouldn't go unnoticed. Also, you refrain from addressing the direct examples given for POV tone, which are good examples for bad editing. Lets leave our opinions of what the "big picture" look like, and address the examples given--Omrim (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, electricity and water are still largely provided (not allowed, provided) by Israel. Lets include that too, shall we?--Omrim (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot actually starve a people into extinction. Israel is obliged to 'provide' water, since not to do so would be in itself an act of war in international law. The average number of trucks required to satisfy minimal standards of life in the Strip is 500. At the most 50 got through the other day. As to water, Israel controls all the acquifers, also on the occupied West Bank, and the allocation pro capita works out 12-10 litres per Israeli to 1 litre per Palestinian. It is even worse in the Gaza Strip, since a large part of the pumping, sewerage and water infrastructure has been bombed to pieces over the past years. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole world, Israel excepted, still says that Gaza is occupied. Controls airspace, borders, and waters == occupied. Nableezy (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So does that make Egypt an occupier to? I would rather not getting into a legal discussion here, but I'll note that since 2005 Israel could bring VERY strong arguments it is not occupying Gaza. Once out of Gaza, there is nothing in international law to directly oblige Israel to keep its borders to Gaza open, especially given the fact that Gaza also have a border with Egypt. The naval blockade itself cannot bring such a claim (even though it makes it stronger). So we are back to intrpretation of facts. see [41] --Omrim (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is fuzzy, admittedly. The case is argued by M.Mari, ‘The Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip: and end of the occupation,’ pp.356-368, and Y. Shany, ‘Faraway, so close: the legal nstatus of Gaza after Israel’s disengagement’ pp.369-386, in T. McCormack, A. McDonald (eds.) Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2005: Volume 8, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Shany says technically it is not occupied. However, it is blockaded, and the words of Sharon's Disengagement Plan, Israel retained the right to enter the Strip at will, exercise control over Gaza’s airspace, sea shore, and borders, including the border with Egypt (over which Israel negotiates with Egypt, not with Hamas), and exercises military control over the coastline, where fishing, once a mainstay of the Gaza economy. It also exercises a self-perceived right to impede Gazans from exiting the Strip. Of the 7 Fulbright scholars who won grants, only 4 got out. Gaza cannot export anything, and cannot import anything, formally, without Israeli permission. Any Jew knows what this means in their history, it's a ghetto in the Pale of Settlement, only conditions are worse. But this is editorializing. Basically, Omrin is correct, but only on a technicality, since International Law hasn't precedents for the kind of stranglehold on that area Israel has long been exercising. I say 'long been' because the systematic running down of the autonomous Gazan economy was official Israeli policy throughout the 1970s to 2005, in order to reduce the competitiveness of non Israeli Gazan produce on the Israeli markets. See John B.Quiigley, The case for Palestine:An International Law Perspective, Duke University Press, 2005 pp.185ff.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're a law student / lawyer. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omrim (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Egypt was an occupier prior to 67, but to say they are an occupier because they close 1 border crossing is tenuous. And it is not my interpretation that Israel is currently occupying Gaza, it is the opinion of the UN, the UK, the EU, the African Union, the Arab League and numerous other sources. All UN documentation about Gaza refer to it as 'Occupied', all ICJ ruling on Gaza refer to it as 'Occupied' the ICRC when mentioning Gaza refer to it as 'Occupied' AI and HRW refer to it as 'Occupied'. They are not required to keep the border open, I agree, they are however required to provide humanitarian assistance to those people under their occupation. Nearly the whole world is in agreement on this, though yes Israel disputes this. They dispute it on a number of grounds, most often that beacause Palestine was not a state prior to Israeli control then it cannot be occupied under international law. The rest of the world disagrees with this analysis. I think this [42] provides some good answers on this subject, presenting both sides. Nableezy (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The ICJ hasn't made any rulings on Gaza, surely. If you are referring to the 2004 decision, that preceded the 2005 disengagement, and therefore is outdatedNishidani (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

Well I see you already linked the same article, but as you can see from that article that it is the official positions of the US, and the UN, and I will get sources if needed to UK, EU, Arab League, African Union, HRW, AI, and ICRC that Gaza is occupied. I think we should say that Gaza is occupied with cites to the organiztions that list it as occupied, with a qualifier that Israel disputes this with cites to a source that shows Israel disputes it. Nableezy (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see. I also see that the secretary general is very reluctant to call it "occupied", and that "occupied" is an official status that should change only when the UN accept a resolution in the matter (as if it ever gonna happen), hence we could at least differentiate between the "official" status describing old facts, and "legal" status describing current facts. Yet, this is not my main point (as admittedly it is not a strong one). However, saying that Egypt is not an occupier since it closes "only" 1 border is a little double standard. Opening this "only 1" border would have terminated the issue at hand. All that is needed is 1 border open to bring a total relief to the humanitarian situation. Why should it be Israel to open it? After all, Israel is the one in conflict with Hamas, while Egypt isn't. Which one of the two (Israel/Egypt) should open its borders to Gaza? the one in conflict with Gaza, or the one which is not? And finally, my Int'l law point is hardly technical. My very point was to say that to date there is no precedent what so ever regarding a situation as the one we have in Gaza. So the fact that some editors put themselves is judges (predicting future rulings), is not technical at all. --Omrim (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for kicks...can we at least agree that Israel still maintains unyielding control of all basic matters when it relates to Palestine? From the West Bank to the coral reefs?

Please, Palestine is broken, inside out...you can blame both Hamas and Israel for this, but do not leave Israel out...

Approach to Media Campaign

The article takes an approach to Israel's media campaign that is simply absurd. It does not address the long history of negative portrayals of Israel. It makes it sound as though Israel is doing something wrong. Israel is simply trying to create open channels speaking directly to the world without media filters because the media so often distorts the facts. Somehow the author manages to spin that negatively.

It's not our job in here to discuss events before the war, or we'll enter an infinite set of variables. By the way, I can not sense this negative spin, but if you can positively improve the article go on. But do not remove cited and well referenced facts. --Darwish07 (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel have stated, reported by CNN International yesterday, that they won't let reporters into Gaza because they want to control the information coming out of there, they thought it might create a bad image of Israel if reporters were allowed to report from inside of Gaza... I wonder who tries to distort the facts the most, when they even state that they don't want reporters to know what happens. — _CHANDLER^#10 — 11:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph in this section is a pretty honest summary of the Haaretz report. There are however other problems in this section:

From the article:

"On January 6, the New York Times reported that the blocking of media access to Gaza was part of an "unprecedented" effort on the part of the Israeli government to "control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy."[...]

The Foreign Press Association of Israel issued a statement on January 6 addressing the situation:

The unprecedented denial of access to Gaza for the world’s media amounts to a severe violation of press freedom and puts the state of Israel in the company of a handful of regimes around the world which regularly keep journalists from doing their jobs."

The way its written suggests that the NYT reporting shows that it is "unprecedented" when in fact the NYT was only quoting the FPAoI. Since the original FPAoI statement is quoted in full later in the article it is both redundant and misleading to mention it again at an earlier point.

From the article:

"According to CNN, Israel is employing psychological tactics against Hamas by sending recorded phone calls to Gazans saying ""Urgent message, warning to the citizens of Gaza: Hamas is using you as human shields. Do not listen to them. Hamas has abandoned you and are hiding in their shelters", or dropping leaflets reading "that the IDF will continue using full force against Hamas...the toll will be very painful."[221] Aid workers have said that the children who survive the conflict will have to endure lifelong "psychological scars".[222] Meanwhile Hamas has sent its own messages to Israeli citizens' mobile phones, warning "rockets on all cities, shelters will not protect you."[223]"

The bolded part is misplaced. The source article says "Children make up a quarter of the more than 600 Palestinians killed in Israel's war on the Hamas rulers of Gaza and aid workers say those who survive will suffer lifelong psychological scars." and makes no mention of this being related to Israel's media campaign or Israel's "psychological tactics."--Andi Hofer (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Phone Calls

"Late Saturday, thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell-phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons." - Associated Press Dec. 27

CNN is a reliable source (though i have a feeling there is something off about that article). On the other hand, to exclude other information from other sources is simply irresponsible and wrong.

The CNN article referred to has faults of its own but those most probably should not be addressed here.

please sign your posts with the little signature button. you'll find it just above the box where you're typing things in. thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

International Reactions

This section in the article lists a number of critics of Israel. Fair enough. But why is the list of supporters of Israel hidden in between two negative sentences and a final negative one? Should not get its own paragraph where people will not miss it? Why are there a number of anti-israel quotes and yet the statements of leaders such as the President of the United States or the President-Elect ("If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," Obama said at the time. "And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." --[43]) not recorded? Or Secretary of State? ("We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence there" [44])

Because the Obama quote was not in reference to this, it was taken during the campiagn when he went to Israel. Also, I think we should limit the quotes to the leaders statements or lacking that some official statement. So I dont think Rice needs to be in there. Nableezy (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Violations of International Law

There are arguments that Israel is committing war crimes? Fine, be balanced and state them but keep them in the section on Israeli Violations. These are the first two paragraphs of the section on Palistinian violations:

The UNHRC statement by Falk also noted: "Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response."[257]

In 2007 exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal, a leader of the terrorist Hamas group called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self defense."[264] In a 2007 report on “Indiscriminate Fire” by both sides in the conflict Human Rights Watch stated that Hamas leaders “argue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes.”[265]

These are paragraphs that more strongly argue that Israel is the aggressor. These paragraphs belong elsewhere. The author lessons the importance of the arguments made against Palistinian forces by inserting unrelated information in that section.

Hi, there's a debate going on about these matters further up the talk page. Please join in. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...and maybe move your comments up there for clarity. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong. But it is a place where people expect to be given real information and all the information. It is a place where people expect to be given both sides of the argument. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for ideological battles to be fought on who is right and who is wrong but the problem is that the author of this article does not.

11aa11aa (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 11aa11aa

you'll need to be very specific about proposed changes/concerns etc or else you're voice will be lost. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ISRAEL if a bit off topic

if Israel's right to exist is based on texts in the Old Testament, which are passages originally written by tent-dwelling nomads living in the Bronze Age, wouldn't it be fair to say, if you don't believe a word of the Bible, then the grounds to have a Jewish homeland are pretty weak. Comparing the fate of others cases of religious prophesy, there is no comparison.

The teachings of holy man, Wovoka led to the ghost dance movement. Followers believed all the white Americans would peacefully leave and things would be as they were before manifest destiny destroyed the native americans way of life. Instead the 7th cavalry didn't believe it and the massacre at Wounded Knee was the result.

Thought experiment: how would western society feel if the Australian Aborigines provide rock paintings (within their religions) that prove Sydney and Melbourne are still rightly theirs, the ancestors of the Incas want most of the Amazon basin back because stone tablets claim it, or the Ainu take back Hokkaido from the Japanese. In all cases the above cultures have ceased to exist for generations but none of them have any religious book that suggests they have a right to reclaim lost lands. Therefore making any claims ludicrous in the eyes of the international community.

Yet it seems to be OK to claim ownership if a religious book says it is right to do that - and a majority of people adhere to the same belief. Footnote: If you DO believe the Bible, then you must know that the 'Promised Land' was already occupied by people (a slight oversight by God), so when the Hebrews arrived - it wasn't an open door, and they had to conquer the area of Canaan. I wonder whether these pre-Bronze Age peoples have a right to their homelands, too?

I conclude that there would be no tragedy like the one in Gaza if people - who believed in the Bible and it's alleged teachings from God - hadn't proliferated such a book. But then again a horrible precedence is always set when 'might is right'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What you said is completely irrelevant. Israel's right to exist is only doubted by radicals, mostly in Islam. The state of Israel is there, and it's a fact. It's a democratic state, a member of the UN. And don't compare "accidental discovery of rock painting", to well established historical/archaeological facts that are also being described in a religious context in the ancient bible book. Israel has the right to exist because there are Hebrew people (Canaanites/Phoenicians that follow Judaism) in this land, for 3000 years at least. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

israel has a right to exist because the un decided to create it. the "well established historical/archaeological facts that are also being described in a religious context in the ancient bible book" that you refer to compare nicely with the rock painting example. until israel stops declaring itself chosen by god and therefore entitled to whatever land it desires these issues will continue to offend secular types who try to respect other cultures. if jewish people hold that belief that's fine, i think lots of religious ideas are silly, but it won't be accepted by the international community as a legal basis for the claims. Untwirl (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel has a right to exist partly because of survival. The Arab countries have repeatedly attempted to destroy it both directly ('48, '68 and Yom Kippur war...) and by proxy (Arafat and now Hamas!). Of course, Hamas is a factor that many Arab governments are at least as uncomfortable with as Israel, especially since Israel is essentially allied with Turkey (strictly not an Arab state, but a secular-Muslim one, as well as through the Ottoman Empire, previous owners of the lands which are now Israel and Palestinian lands.), has benevolent neutrality from Egypt and Jordan and an Iraq that absorbs most of the attention and resources of Tehran.

As for peace, Israel has repeatedly made arrangements, usually brokered though the United States or European powers (Sweden, France, (West) Germany and Great Britain have all been involved) between itself and various Arab governments to secure peace with first her neighbors and then the Palestinians. The Arab governments have mostly kept the faith, largely because of fear of the IDF, with the notable exception of the unlamented Saddam Hussein. The efforts with the Palestinians bordered often on appeasement with predictable results, and the Qassam rockets were obviously over the line. V. Joe (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody claims that Israel has the right to exist because they are "the chosen people". This is again the propaganda of radical Islam and Hamas. You can believe it, but you can also believe the "teachings" of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Israel has the right to exist because, as V. Joe said: "Israel has a right to exist partly because of survival. The Arab countries have repeatedly attempted to destroy it both directly ('48, '68 and Yom Kippur war...) and by proxy (Arafat and now Hamas!)."

Israel is the most advanced, democratic and successful state in the middle east, despite the existential struggle they're in on almost daily basis. Israel has given the world much in technology, medicine and science in the last 60 years much more than all the Arab states taken together. That alone is enough for it to earn the right exist.

Again, there is a status quo of the Israeli state, and the Palestinian people. They are located in 2 different zones, neighboring. Israel tried to make peace with them, that will eventually lead to the removal of all Israeli military from Palestinian territory (they are currently there to defend Israeli citizens, because when they aren't there, there are numerous terror attacks against Israel originating from these same areas). Israel already removed itself from Gaza.

-Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

this is extremely off content - i wasn't stating my opinion above - simply stating what the international community does and does not recognize for our purposes in the article. i don't think this is a good forum for the direction this discussion is taking. let's discuss specific facts pertaining to this article. Untwirl (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Holy Land has only known peace at the point of a foreign sword"...Winston Churchill

"Only the Romans and the Ottomans have ever been able to keep peace in the Holy Land, because they did what they wanted and needed to do, and they cared not about public opinion." Winston Churchill - both added by--98.111.139.133 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And that is simply untrue. When the Romans ruled here, there was civil unrest and there were revolts, sieges, wars, exiles and etc. When the Ottomans been here, this place was pretty much a barren desert, with small populations of Nomads and Jews here and there. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" ,"And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg."..."Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this." Quotes from the Life of Brian--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest moving all this to Talk:Zionism. FWIW I believe Israel has a right to exist, but there's a lot of truth in the comparison of some Zionist attitudes and "manifest destiny".--Chikamatsu (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Up till 1948 wasn't everybody there in the Holy Land there by Right by Conquest? Historically speaking didn't the Hebrews, Greeks, Phoenicians, Romans, Arabs, Ottomans et al, get there by invading the place under some pretext or other?--98.111.139.133 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two as instructed by their own deity? I.E. Hebrews and Arabs--98.111.139.133 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This sidebar has nothing to do with Zionism, only with Israel's de facto existence as a country.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This sidebar has nothing to do with this article and shouldn't be here. Nobody has brought up Israel's 'right to exist' in this conflict, think we should limit the talk page to discussion of the actual topics of the article, not whether the romans or the ottomans or whoever did what. Nableezy (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And, just to throw gas on the fire:

1, Continuous Jewish residence/occupation since time of Joshua

2, Balfour Declaration of 1917

3, League of Nations Mandate which incorporated the Balfour Declaration

4, UN partition Resolution of 1947

5, Israel admitted into UN in 1949,

6, Diplomatic recognition by many countries.

Plus wars of defense against an enemy who massively outnumbered them on several occasions, 48, 56, 67, 73, 82, and all the small things like the Water War etc.

--98.111.139.133 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel's Attack on Gaza Strip - The reason

I just noticed the "Israel's Attack on Gaza Strip - The reason" external link. I'm not sure what other peoples thoughts are on whether it should be removed or not. It qualifies as propaganda I suppose but at least it does graphically show what is happening....on one side...which is a start. Having said that, I haven't looked at the Palestinian link to see whether that's meant to balance it in detail although the first thing I saw was 'A satanic, genocidal Israel'..charming. I couldn't see a discussion the links (..maybe archived) hence this note. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My views: It's opening a Pandora's Box to allow polemical links to non-verified sources in 'External Links', just as it does to allow synthetic linking such as Pallywood in 'See Also'. If the phenomena of amateur propaganda, web activism / jihad deserves mention, it should be somewhere in the "media strategies". However, I think it overlaps heavily with "international reaction" as a form of protest.--Chikamatsu (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"25%" Pal. casualties civilians

The infobox sources the UN as saying the "25%" of the casualties in Gaza are civilians... which doesn't make sense, because as the total grows, that 25% number grows at different rate than the actual civilian death toll. Someone needs to check the grand total when that report was released and take 25% of that number... or just keep updating it with the real number from the UN. Percentages only work once the conflict is over.Jeztah (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hezbollah participation is not clear

According to BBC[45], It is not clear who fired the rockets, and no-one has yet said they did it. BBC says in another article[46] that Most analysts have concluded it is unlikely to be Hezbollah - despite recent fiery rhetoric from the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah about the possibility of renewed conflict with Israel. According to New York times[47], Hezbollah hasn't accepted the responsibility yet.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the bottom of the BBC article. there's a line that says ...this may be a way for them to show solidarity with Gaza without provoking a massive Israeli retaliation....--23prootie (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In this context, it is important to remember that nothing happens in South Lebanon without Hizbollah's permission. Rabend (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about what you think, this is about information that can actually be verified. The sources all say that Hezbollah has respected the UN's presence in South Lebanon, and that this does not appear to be their work. 400,000 Palestinians live in Lebanon, and this could easily be them acting in solidarity with Gaza. -Amjra 14:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

is that original research or a sourced statement? if "nothing happens in South Lebanon without Hizbollah's permission" is what the media says, please provide a source, otherwise it is simply your opinion and shouldn/t be used to determine what to include in the article. Untwirl (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Olmert quote in Intro

The intro now has an extensive quote from Ehud Olmert's interview to Al-Arabiya. While this may merit a mention later in the article, it definitely does not mention 7 lines in the introduction. The introduction should briefly review the most important facts. Neither this nor other statements by Hamas leaders or Israeli leaders qualify here. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :I can't see why not. It does not link to propoganda video "explaining facts". I simply links to a video in which a man is saying something, and we quote the man's sayings. What is to be miss represented here?--Omrim (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

youtube as a source?

this edit

"Fathi Hamad a Hamas representative in the PA legislative council, takes pride on Palestinian TV in the fact that women and children are used as human shield in fighting Israel. He describes it as part of the "Death Industry" at which they excel, and explains that the Palestinians "desire death" the same way Israelis "desire life". [311]"

links to a youtube video. i don't believe youtube is an acceptable source, esp. for an article as controversial as this one. Untwirl (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Shows Hamas in a bad light?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

please assume good faith. i am simply referring to youtube as a source. find one that is reliable and i will strongly support its inclusion. Untwirl (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why not. It does not link to propaganda video "explaining facts". I simply links to a video in which a man is saying something, and we quote the man's sayings. What is to be misrepresented here?--Omrim (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i wasn't worried about misrepresentation, as i said it's just youtube that i was doubting. with a quick glance i didn't see any other youtube links (there may very well be - i wasn't very thorough) i am relatively new here so maybe you can help me understand when youtube is okay. thanks for your patience. Untwirl (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased volume of information?

Under 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict:1) Background, there seems to be a case of misuse of information. According to Ref. 88, it was quoted "the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival." It is fine to quote this however, I find it terribly misleading to the reader when the next paragraph in the article is left out.

The next paragraph reads "Israeli officials acknowledged that transferring previously banned goods had been the plan, but said that there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps. But the rockets never fully stopped."

This next parag you cite form the NY Times source actually confirms the key aspects of the material I added from the same source. Israeli officials acknowledge that providing more goods to Gaza had been part of the cease-fire plan and, by implication that Israel continued to block major increases because "there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps." The Israeli officials also state that the "rockets never FULLY stopped" (emphasis mine), which is an implicit acknowledgement of the diminution of the number of rockets fired. The portion of the piece I added states that there was a major decrease but no complete cessation of rockets fired and even provided numbers (or at least ranges) for selected months. Having said all that, if you think that your paragraph is crucial, add it instead of complaining about the rest.

What I find biased is that someone added the words "Hamas claims" before the sentence Hamas' efforts to stop rockets being fired were largely successful. This is a deliberate misstatement of what the NYT sources states. The NYT source states as a matter of fact that Hamas' efforts were largely successful, not that this is a Hamas version, and then cites specific numbers of rockets for selected months to buttress this fact.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if we are to provide information on an informative site such as Wikipedia, it is only fair that we provide unbiased views on this conflict. There is simply too much information on the article about 1)the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and 2)the border blocks that Israel has enforced. What I find lacking is Israel's explaination for all it has done and that is available in many articles, even the articles that were referenced but were left out for unknown reasons. I also chanced upon another discussion to create a bar chart of the wounded/dead on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. I am not against it, however, to be fair, I request that a similar bar graph be plotted on the number of projectiles fired from both sides. It should also be mentioned that there is a difference in these projectiles. Israeli missiles have guiding systems to hit (near) where they intended to hit. Quassams do not have such systems.span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.92.2 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

can i assume these "projectiles" will include those shot from planes as well? how about guns? (bullets are essentially projectiles). your post seems to be wanting to improve npov, i assume good faith. Untwirl (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way might be to count the number of reports involing explosive projectiles. These should be rockets, missles, rockets, mortars and artillery shelling. I recommend that the chart be split into two categories though, During War and Non-War time. War should probably refer to this current war, because reports are still fresh and information found on multiple sources are more trustworthy. And yes, I am doing this in good faith. I feel this chart is important, because it might give a clearer picture. After all, Israel did say that this war is all about rocket fire on Southern Israel.

sorry, not trying to sound sarcastic, i was just pointing out that "projectiles fired from both sides" instead of illustrating israel's point to self-defense from rocket fire, could be taken so far as to mean bullets fired by idf on raids targeting palestinians. especially considering how contentious that issue is here. there is already a decent amount of background on israel's reasoning for the attack. (also, please sign your post by typing 4 tildes ~) Untwirl (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I was a wrong to add "Hamas claims". I was in a rush to delete adjectives not in source (such as "only modestly"), and I added that as well, sorry about that. Yet, the source is not a news article, it is a "news analysis". In other words, it is an intperetation of facts, and we present it in our article as facts. We should either lose it and stick to known facts (i.e. such and such rockets were fired on that day, and such and such trucks were allowed in that day), or put an analysis (many of which are out there) putting the blame on the Hamas to counterweight. We are discribing someone's intrepretation to a very contriversial issue (who is to blame for ending the truce) as "fact". We already had a concensus (a few days back) to simply state each side's argument (meaning each side blaming the other). This was in and someone took it out and revert a consencus. We should re-write it to simply present each side's argument, rather then bringing one "analysis" form a single source.--Omrim (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

missing source link

the latest edit (new poll):

"A decisive majority of respondents support continuing the army's air campaign against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip without endangering the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in a ground offensive ..."

is missing the source link. Untwirl (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for noting.--Omrim (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pride for Human Shields

You better maintain your neutrality, Wikipedia, or you will lose all credibility

Taking pro-abbas propaganda as factual facts is certainly not Neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.176.241 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to provide specific constructive criticism, we are all ears. If you wish to make blanket assertions and unsupported allegations then take it elsewhere.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel admits no militants in UN school

The following statement is made under the UN school section:

According to a UN spokesman, Israel later admitted that in fact the militant fire had not come from the school.

I can find no source other than the Earth Times that says this. While the Earth Times is a WP:RS, it's pretty much a second-tier news agency. It's fine to use, but can anyone find me an article from the BBC, CNN, NYT, Jerusalem Post, etc. that also says that? If not, this sentence should be removed for WP:Notability and WP:Reliability. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Guardian print edition today, which may well be where this source got the info from in the first place, but I can't seem to find it online (after spending all of two seconds trying just now). --Nickhh (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You get the print edition? Lucky bastard... If you've got the title or a catchphrase try googling with "site:guardian.co.uk" in the query. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 08.01.2009 16:57

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167303802&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull "The Israeli army in private briefings with diplomats have admitted that the militant fire from Jabalya yesterday came from outside the UNRWA school compound and not inside the UNRWA school compound," said Christopher Gunness, a spokesman for the UN Relief and Works Agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.205.222 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's more:

• A spokesman for UNWRA separately told Reuters that the Israeli army, in private meetings with diplomats, had admitted that the mortar fire came from outside the school compound and not from within it. (Reuters)
• The Israeli army has admitted privately to the UN that no firing came from a Gaza school where 42 people died on Tuesday after being hit by Israeli mortars, officials of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa) disclosed last night. Publicly, the Israeli army claims that the school, which was providing shelter for around 350 people, was being used by Hamas fighters to carry out attacks. Unrwa officials said they were fully confident this was not the case. (The Independent) Tiamut^talk 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As in the Iranian airbus incident in 1989, all governments lie to the press about what their military did, and know they did, when the shit hits the fan, and flood the press with disinformation. The strategic aim is to create confusion and doubt in the public's mind while effective action is under way. The truth comes out usually after 6 months or a year, if one manages to get an official enquiry, and usually on a small column of back page print that no one reads, or that deals with the issue after it has been long forgotten. That is why so few official inquiries are made. This does not mean that invariably IDF explanations are wrong. It means only that, though official, they should be taken cum grano salis, since belligerents are waging war on two fronts, the ground and in the media (as in here). The UN and its bodies, or people on the ground with some official aid body credentials, are probably closer to the realities than those working in back offices, making reports under instruction for the mass media.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ANd then again, maybe not--Tomtom9041 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for finding so many sources so quickly! I went ahead and updated the wording of the sentence to reflect these sources. After all, saying that fire came from outside the school doesn't mean fire didn't come from the school. Someone could have stood right next to it and fired, which might appear the same to a commander in the heat of battle. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Since journalists are not allowed in

this Rare view from ground zero may help understand what is actually going on, beyond the phosphorus smokescreen, and news black out. Then again, there weren't many newspapers reporting the Warsaw uprising. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how appropriate. Let's compare with the holocaust. Same thing, of course. Everyone knows Jews committed suicide bombings in Berlin, and fired rockets into Munich. Exact, same thing.

Low, even for you. okedem (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not too low for the Vatican: Gaza Strip resembles a concentration camp, says top Vatican official. Tiamut^talk 17:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we remind you the Vatican's (in)actions during the holocaust? The Vatican hardly holds any moral ground to compare anything to the holocaust. I have yet to see the Israelis commit a methodological killling of Palestinians just for the sake of killing them. If this was the case, the entire thing would be over in three days.--Omrim (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you need a moral high ground to compare things? The Vatican with their first hand helping hands in the holocaust probably knows what it looks like and therefore can compare it? — _CHANDLER^#10 — 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the whole interview with Cardinal Raffaele Martino be read, instead of that one phrase. It is highly critical of Hamas and of Israel. Concentration camps were invented by Spain in Cuiba in 1898, used by the British against the Boers. They are not exclusive to Jewish history. Gaza has long been a concentration camp, since no one can get in, or out, and all have been on starvation rations since the plebiscite that, under American pressure for elections, voted in Hamas, was greeted by a massive blockade that destroyed any reasonable prospects for its people to survive with minimal dignity. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You, like most young people, do not know your own historyokedem. Herschel Grynszpan was acting quite rationally when he shot the German ambassador Ernst von Rath in Paris in 1938. As were Tuvia and Zus Bielski, when they shot back, or even like the Jewish Military Union shot collaborators in their ranks (as Hamas does, as Amira Hass notes in today's Haaretz. One does not approve, but all this crap about Hamas's behaviour, when it echoes with analogies from Jewish history's most tragic moments, looks odd). Historians like Raul Hilberg worried a lifetime as to why so few Jews shot back. Israel learnt the lesson, but in learning it, has forgotten that Palestinians have been told by a government minister a shoah is around the corner, and large numbers of them have no intention of being passive in the slaughter. I didn't expect comment on the article. But I linked it, expecting that at least all might read it, and simply take note mentally that what RS sources, which have no one on the ground in that inferno, say or pontificate about, and we use only them, they don't reflect in any way the realities actually as lived through by people on the ground. We have thousands of articles and visits to Sderot, and zilch from inside Gaza. Some of us are extremely sensitive about these things precisely because we grew up reading thoroughly the tragic history of the ghettoized Jews, and were militant in their defence, and precisely for this reason, are now, for decades, deeply disturbed by certain overpowering analogies. There is no offence in analogy, unless one believes some people are unique. I'll leave it at that. Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again with the "young people". Your last (and lazy) resort, to belittle the other person, in the patronizing tone to make other people think you're so knowledgeable, and the other so ignorant. I know my history, and, obviously, much more than you do, as I actually know the extreme differences between the situations. I suppose you'll never get it, though. From what you write, I learned a long time ago that your mind is so extremely skewed and biased, you'll never face facts. (And as a note to others - things can be wrong without comparison to the Nazis. It's a stupid comparison to make, and usually shows ignorance and demagoguery in the speaker). okedem (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks Okedem. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not give you the right to abuse them. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Red cross and UN aid suspension

Could someone mention somewhere on the article that the Red cross has accused Israel of failing to help civilians and the UN aid agency has had to suspend operations in Gaza because of the danger to their staff. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7817926.stm Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs to this are in the lead, last line.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think BritishWatcher is right that we need a section for this here. I added something to the timeline article about it. But it seems to be a growing issue UN pulls out of Gaza over fears for its staff. Tiamut^talk 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing NY Times article that exaggerates Rockets fired during truce

I wanted to bring this up for discussion once more before I revise this. No one opposed this edit but I did not receive many responses so I thought it would be appropriate to give people a new opportunity to discuss this as it refers to a large block of prominent text.

In the background page someone has cited an NYT article with the following excerpt:

"The New York Times summed up the situation leading to the complete breakdown of the cease-fire and the dramatic increase in hostilities thus: "Opening the routes to commerce was Hamas’ main goal in its cease-fire with Israel, just as ending the rocket fire was Israel’s central aim. But while rocket fire did go down drastically in the fall to 15 to 20 a month from hundreds a month, Israel said it would not permit trade to begin again because the rocket fire had not completely stopped and because Hamas continued to smuggle weapons from Egypt through desert tunnels. Hamas said this was a violation of the agreement, a sign of Israel’s intentions and cause for further rocket fire. On Wednesday [24 Dec 08], some 700 rockets hit Israel over 24 hours, in a distinct increase in intensity.[41]"

According the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rockets fired from Gaza after the truce ranged between 2-12 per month, not going over 15 even a single time. In fact this table summarizes the data provided by the IMFA over the period of the truce and just before.

Rockets and Mortars Launched from Gaza May-Nov '08

Type	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	June 1-18	June 18-30	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec
Rockets	136	228	103	373	206	153	5	4	8	1	1	125	361
Mortar	241	257	196	145	149	84	3	8	3	3	1	68	241

Reference: The Hamas terror war against Israel. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 01-01-2009. See Statistics of Kassam rocket and mortar fire from the Gaza Strip subsection.

As this table demonstrates total rocket attacks (mortar+rocket) never went above 12 and decreased to 2 for the month of october, just before Israel raided armed Hamas members on Nov 4.

I propose that that source is scrapped since it is innacurate accorind the IMFA itself. Instead it should state the data presented by the IMFA and give context for how drastic the drop in rocket attacks were. A possible revision:

"A total of 37 rockets were launched from Jun 18 to the end of October, which represents a 98 percent drop from the previous four and a half months during which 1894 rockets had been launched. Following Israel's Nov 4 attack that killed six Hamas operatives, rocket fire resumed from Gaza and 193 rockets were launched in the remainder of Nov."

The NYT article is exagerating the the rocket fire by over a factor of two with regards to official Israeli records. This fact calls for a revision along the lines of my proposal. (See #Background and Rockets Fired during Ceasefire, for my first and more comprehensive critique of our coverage in the Background)

See: #NY Times article exaggerates Rockets fired during truce for the few responses this proposal received. If there isn't significant discussion on this issue I will go ahead with the edits in some time. Thrylos000 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edit. Preferably, as above, it should replace the NYT's quote, which is as useless as tits on a bull. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

UN attacked by Israel, end of humanitarian aid

Should probably be added to the notable events; Israelis attacked a UN humanitarian relief truck, killing the drivers, and causing the UN to completely end their humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza, citing this incident as well as the school bombings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28404637

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians;_ylt=Asduk0rLKzEWc5nTjkq.Dd.s0NUE

AndarielHalo (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For now, I added a brief note at the Timeline of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, which we seem to have forgotten about developing since it was farmed out of this article to its own page. I encourage editors to continue working on that article too, after which we can move parts of it back here. For new editors, that might be a good place to edit since this article is protected from editing by them. Odd. Tiamut^talk 17:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its worth more than a brief note, the UN stopping and the Red cross perhaps stopping because of Israel shooting at them. — _CHANDLER^#10 — 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

We should get rid of the infoboxes in the "Notable Incidents" section. Clearly the article itself and Major parts of it deserves infoboxes but those parts are minor parts. It will just make the article blurry and double the information, the Samouni family infobox is as high as the actual information without contributing with anything. Unneccessary. If we keep them we should add an infobox to every minor part of the article where it is possible, like to the the "Rockets from Lebanon" section for example, so we can illustrate all attacks with infoboxes. Not just those where Israel is perpetrators, that is POV.--Fipplet (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the infoboxes highlighting major attacks are worth including. (The ones in this diff [48]) Is there is a major attack against Israelis by Palestinian militants that you would to include that is not currently represented?

Tomtom9041 has deleted them again it seems, without discussion. I for one would like to see them restored. Other editors, any thoughts? Tiamut^talk 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"Clearly the article itself and Major parts of it deserves infoboxes but those parts are minor parts. It will just make the article blurry and double the information, the Samouni family infobox is as high as the actual information without contributing with anything. Unneccessary. If we keep them we should add an infobox to every minor part of the article where it is possible, like to the the "Rockets from Lebanon" section for example." Also rockets that has killed Israelis are at least as worth having a infobox as the dignity infobox.

Casualty chart caption

Please do not put a caption on the chart image in the article that lists data sources. Those sources change frequently as I find updates on the numbers. And the data sources are always listed at the bottom of the chart image itself. I change them as necessary on the chart image itself. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett85's edit 'summing wounded Israeli soldiers from sources' pt.2

BobaFett85 has a habit of making updates to the page without using edit summaries. He most recently changed the injured Israeli civilian count t0 41 from 39 citing this JP article. There is no total count listed there. Presumably he made the edit because the article states: "One resident suffered a broken leg and another sustained bruises, both apparently from slipping on the floor after emergency sprinklers came on."

We have already addressed the reasons why summing across sources is not allowed, yet Bobafett continues to make edits without deliberation this time even sloppier than the last. I've reverted his edit and encourage him to come here and discuss his editing practices. Thrylos000 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

He did the same with soldier count citing this article. I'm reverting that as well. Please lets standardize our counting practices a bit and not scour new sources and then sum as we see fit. Thrylos000 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Total numbers of dead women and children

I found some more numbers.

See the data, quotes, and sources in the image summary for the chart:

• File:Gaza-Israel war casualties.png

It also has numbers for wounded women and children. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)