Talk:2014 Gaza War

Human shields

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

---

Result: Wikipedia should not state that Hamas has admitted to using human shields.

Seven editors supported inclusion of the material and ten opposed inclusion.

The main argument in favour of inclusion was that a statement by Sami Abu Zuhri appeared to encourage Palestinian civilians to act as human shields. It was argued, therefore that an admission by Hamas of using human shields is reliably sourced. I don't think this is a convincing argument. It seems clear that Hamas do deny using human shields and, in the quote, no clear reference is made to the concept of human shield, as it is normally understood. As one editor puts it, "homes are not combatant targets." I agree with this perspective, and I think it represents the bottom line.

Against inclusion it was argued that Israel has used human shields. Without saying whether this is true or false, I am not sure that it directly relevant. It was also argued that the quote has been "pulled from obscurity" to make a point. This may also be true, but I have not taken it into account - as indicated above, I think there is a clear bottom line in this case, which allows the numerical majority in the vote to hold sway.

There was some discussion of whether opinion pieces characterising Hamas as using human shields were sufficient to support the claim. I do not think they are, because we should treat opinion pieces with caution and because it is not clear that the sources are using the term in the conventional legal sense which our readers would expect (if I stay in my home to prevent it being bombed then I am in some sense a "human shield", but not in the conventional sense). This does not necessarily present the attributed opinions of the authors in question being included in the article, nor does it particularly authorise that.

It should be noted that this close has been made narrowly on the question of whether approving of people staying in their homes during a military attack constitutes making human shields of them. I'm aware that there are other accusations against Hamas relating to human shielding, and this close has nothing to do with those one way or the other. Several editors commented in the RfC that they believed Hamas to have used human shields. It should be noted that this is not the question of the RfC, which asks whether Hamas has admitted this.

Overall, it seems to me that there is no clear evidence that Hamas has supported the use of human shields by encouraging people to remain in their homes and that the majority view of participants in the RfC accords with this.

Our text currently reads that "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. " and "In response, Israel claimed that many civilian casualties were the result of Hamas using the Gazan population as 'human shields' at alleged missile launch targets,[196] an allegation denied by Hamas."

This text seems incorrect, as Hamas has on multiple occasions acknowledged using human shields,both during this conflict, and in general, and praised those who use that tactic as martyrs. (Although they have in other contexts denied it as well) How should we correctly describe this part?

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri: "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes."

"We call on our Palestinian people, particularly the residents of northwest Gaza, not to obey what is written in the pamphlets distributed by the Israeli occupation army. We call on them to remain in their homes and disregard the demands to leave, however serious the threat may be"

• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182729#.U8kvA_nP3z4
• http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/hamas-encourages-civilians-to-ignore-warnings-act-as-human-shields-video/
• http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=12019

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Better source : http://www.newsweek.com/video-shows-gaza-residents-acting-human-shields-israeli-forces-258223Gaijin42 (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Sami Abu Zuhri does not use the term "human shield". Besides, the video refers to practice that some Gazan residents have adopted where they would stand on the roof of targeted homes in hopes of preventing its bombing by Israel attacks, which is quite different from the conventional definition for human shield. Nevertheless, Israel continues to use such vague terms and explanations to defend its assault. Naturally, we would have to include the perspective of the other side as well. Hence the video cited for Hamas' denial. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How is that different than the conventional definition of human shield? That seems EXACTLY the definition to me? From the lede of the article you linked "placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets" Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Homes are not "combatant targets". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I would normally say that is a fair point, except for them being used repeatedly as launch sites for rockets, and the place where the combatants and leaders are. However, in the interest of compromise, is there a way that we could flesh out the current text? Something along the lines of "Hamas has denied used human shields, but has encouraged/praised people to/who go on roofs of homes and buildings to discourage them from being bombed by Israeli forces"? OR some other wording you think accurately captures Zuhri's statements? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean like the bombing of the rehabilitation center for the severely disabled that killed 4 patients and their nurse, and it turns out the alleged Hamas member was not even home at the time? I think sentence you proposed is suggestive, and possibly violates WP:SYNTH. Note that the video has been discussed earlier at Talk:Operation_Protective_Edge#Human_Shield. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to justify any side, but what you do is sort of cherry picking. Most of IAF strikes are against legitimate targets (at least according to IDF intelligence), sites that are used as launch sites, hideouts or missile and weapon caches. Once in a while there are mistakes and wrong or unrelated target are being hit, and these do not represent the vast majority of airstrikes. According to IDF, more than 1500 airstrikes were used, and only very little of these actually hit these targets in which "disabled patients or children: were hit. This is a very small number by any means, although these are the only cases that are being shown in the social media, to provoke emotional responses. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"pal watch" is not reliable source, but Washington Times is [1]. However, we all must respect some basic rules, including that this is not a place for discussion, who is to blame for this war. Our personal oppinions on this war are irrlevant for Wiipedia, we must edit without bias. Beside that, there are few other rules 1) 1rr, 2) WP:NPOV, that needs to be respected.--Tritomex (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. My original point was that a statement by the hamas spokesperson about is surely notable and relevant enough for inclusion. Readers can determine how to interpret the statements from the various sides on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments

Current article text reads "[IDF] says Hamas was using the Gazan population as 'human shields';[20] an allegation denied by Hamas. ". Some sources (see sources below) have pointed out a video of an interview with Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri which he is quoted (translated) as saying "The people oppose the Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone... I think this method has proven effective against the occupation. It also reflects the nature of our heroic and brave people, and we, the [Hamas] movement, call on our people to adopt this method in order to protect the Palestinian homes" .

Should this quote or a brief summary of the sources discussing these statements and quotes be included in the context of the allegations of use of Human shields?

clarification The question is not "Should we say Hamas admitted to use of Human shields in video X" but "Should the video be mentioned, in the context that entities/sources X,Y, Z have brought it up in discussions/allegations about IF Hamas uses human shields". Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Snippets from the relevant sources discussing the quote/video for convinience

Newsweek : "Another video published on the site shows Sami Abu Zuhri, the Hamas spokesman in Gaza, encouraging people to use their bodies as human shields to further deter IDF strikes.". USA Today "Netanyahu says Hamas is using civilians as human shields. The Israel Defense Forces issued photographs on its blog Tuesday showing a crowd of people, including children, on a building's roof after Israel urged that it be evacuated.The blog also shows a July 15 video clip of Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri commending people for ignoring Israeli warnings. "The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself," Abu Zuhri said. WSJ "Earlier this month Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on Al-Aqsa TV and encouraged Gaza residents to act as human shields." Herald Sun "Again, Hamas knows that, which is perhaps why its spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri boasted on Al Aqsa TV on July 8 that Hamas’s tactic of using civilians as human shields “has been proven effective”." Asian Age "The Israeli Defence Forces, which circulated a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri encouraging the use of human shields, said that Hamas is instructing Gazan population to climb rooftops and protect its terrorists." TimesHerald (reprint of USA today) Washington Post "The Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, admitted July 8 that Hamas was using the Palestinians as human shields and that this had has proven to be effective." channel4 "Actually Hamas has made no secret of advocating the use of civilians as human shields to try to face down Israeli aggression.A senior spokesman for the group, Sami Abu Zuhri, gave an interview on Palestinian station al-Aqsa TV earlier this month." Globe and Mail "Hamas openly encourages civilians to act as human shields. Here’s what Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri had to say recently on Al-Aqsa TV (via the Middle East Media Research Institute): “This attests to the character of our noble, jihad-fighting people, who defend their rights and their homes with their bare chests and their blood … We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy in order to protect the Palestinian homes.”" LA Times "Against this Israeli effort, Hamas employed a counter-strategy of trying to prevent civilians from heeding Israeli warnings. On July 8, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri appeared on local television and called on Gazans to serve as human shields against Israeli air attacks." Time "What makes Hamas’ actions a double war crime is that they target civilians in Israel while exploiting civilians in Gaza and using them as human shields.Hamas is building its terror command centers and weapons storage facilities among schools, hospitals and mosques, showing no regard for civilian lives. Israel’s concerted efforts to avoid harming uninvolved civilians have been well documented. Hamas instructs the people in Gaza to ignore Israel’s phone calls, leaflets and text messages, warning civilians of pending attacks against terrorists. Knowingly, they put Palestinians in harm’s way turning them into propaganda tools.Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in a television interview earlier this month, “the fact that people are facing Israeli warplanes bare-chested to protect their homes, I believe this procedure has proved its efficiency. And we in the Hamas movement call on our people to adopt this procedure.” Washington times 2 "But Hamas’ “Interior Ministry” has cynically instructed Gazans to ignore these warnings, and has encouraged their people to act as human shields. Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri told the terror organization’s al-Aqsa TV network last week that instructing people to serve as human shields was an, “effective policy,” and one that, “reflects the character of our brave, courageous people.” He continued by blatantly stating, “We in Hamas call upon our people to adopt this policy.”

I have notified the NPOV, NOR, and RSN noticeboards about this RFC

Survey

• include as proposer. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• include. The uncharacteristically bitter and POV tone of your reflections are not helping your cause, N. You usually contribute a well-balanced argument. However, I remain to be ultimately convinced, based on sober language and some bloody good RS. I did not expect the poor argument below from you. That's me editing after 6 cans of Strongbow Cider at 3am. You can do better than that. Please completely rework your argument, and avoid terms like Hasbara. Engage me, don't make me wince. Respectfully, Irondome (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include When I read the quoted sentence, the only message I get is that people are really defenseless and are using their last weapons (lives) to protect their homes, and that, people who are not afraid of death may do every thing possible and hence do every thing to protect their homes. Don Juan says:"When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to." To me, it does not mean that they are encouraged to make a human shield against the planes but to do every thing they can for their homes and not to fear death. Mhhossein (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include. It's relevant and sourced... why not? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment A vague statement encouraging people to "oppose Israeli fighter planes with their bodies alone" is nowhere close to a definition of a human shield. It can just as well be read as a defiant attitude towards Israel. There has to be actual evidence of people either forced to, or explicitly being deliberately placed so as to shield combatants from attack, or to shield combat targets, to qualify as human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my vote to "include" for the reasons given elsewhere. Kingsindian (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) --- Update: I have changed my mind again, mainly due to WP:UNDUE. I am going to simply "abstain" and leave my comment for purposes of discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Include There are well-sourced evidences that Hamas using civilians as human shields. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include the exact quote if properly sourced, but not in juxtaposition to the human shields, as per Kingsindian. If there are reliable unbiased sources supporting the human shields, in juxtaposition to the Hamas denial. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't change/don't include - I've yet to see a black and white statement from Hamas leaders staying "Stay in your homes so that the Israelis will bomb you and you will be our shields" that's cited by reliable sources, or anything like that... what we have here are vague, unclear videos being referred to by mostly unreliable sources (GatewayPundit for once). I agree with Mhhossein and Kingsindian, essentially. For what it's worth, the article already includes the official Hamas line, as taken from CNN, that they encourage people to stay in their homes because they would be as unsafe (or more) if they were in public streets / areas. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include. Of course it's inappropriate to include this. Even putting aside the largely inadmissible batch of sources, there's no reason to think that human shields are what's being referred to here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include explained that it's proof of a "human shield" strategy. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Include - The use of human shields is a serious accusation that is backed up by evidence.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include It is original research and requires a secondary source to connect the dots. A human shield is a non-combatant and involuntary. People who stood in front of tanks in Tiananman square were not human shields. Had they instead tied up Kindergardeners and laid them in front of the tanks, those children would have been human shields. TFD (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include because in a highly charged context, the quote, whose context and translation are murky, becomes a reprehensible way of justifying the bombing of a civilian population. There's no way to pretend this isn't a political issue. -Darouet (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include as it's WP:SYN to imply that the statement has any relation with Hamas using human shields. // Liftarn (talk)
• Don't include, basically per Liftarn. But. It is an identified ID propaganda meme, not appropriate to historical narrative, except to note that it is an Israeli meme used to sway Western public opinion. It is a vicious 'spin' on complex events, using one obscure quote to frame a battle strategy which has no other option than to fight from urban areas, as in every known war, and as Yitzhak Laor writing for the London Review of Books entitled a similar strategy, the taking point is to drive home to the world that 'You (Hamas) are terrorists, we (ID) are virtuous.' (Vol. 28 No. 16 · 17 August 2006 pp.11-12). Every single meme deployed by Israel's Foreign Ministry, the ID and many users in here to press this 'case' of cowardly warfare by Hamas has been cooked up in defiance of history, Jewish history in its most desperate moments, as Uri Avnery wrote some days ago:

For viewers of the Israeli media, Hamas is the incarnation of evil. We are fighting “terrorists.” We are bombing “terror targets” (like the home of the family of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh). Hamas fighters never withdraw, they “escape.” Their leaders are not commanding from underground command posts, they are “hiding.” They are storing their arms in mosques, schools and hospitals (as we did during British times). Tunnels are “terror tunnels.” Hamas is cynically using the civilian population as “human shields” (as Winston Churchill used the London population). Gaza schools and hospitals are not hit by Israeli bombs, God forbid, but by Hamas rockets (which mysteriously lose their way) and so on.'

If anyone tried to write the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, using the Nazi antisemitic spin that high casualties were caused by the use by the Jewish resistance of women and children as human shields, I'd not only automatically revert it: I'd report him.

The Poles' resistance in Warsaw is a Jewish resistance. Only yids are capable of the blackmail of putting women and children in the front line, to take advantage of the Germans' sense of scruple.' This obscene crap was reliably noted down by Mihail Sebastian Journal, 1935-1944, Pimlico, 2003 p.238, reporting what the antisemite (to the end of his life) Mircea Eliade said at the time.

Worst still, as I have often noted, the Israeli Supreme Court has condemned to IDF for the practice, and with impunity it is known to have consistently used Palestinian children to this end, from Jenin to Operation Cast Lead (see here, only one of numerous cases). Yanir Yagna, a Likud MK publicly called for deploying Palestinian prisoners (many without formal charges against them) as human shield against Qassam rockets. Of course that and dozens of other pieces of rhetorical shit people like myself notice are never worked into wiki pages. Or if they are, it's usually some POV-crank who does it. It was even used of Hezbollah, with even Amos Oz spouting it in 2006 ('this is not always an easy task, as Hizbullah missile-launchers often use Lebanese civilians as human sandbags,') only to be informed, if he ever troubled to follow up the technical literature, that Human Rights Watch in its report on the 2006 found to be completely unfounded, though it did find Israel had both repeatedly bombed both "individual vehicles and entire convoys of civilians who heeded the Israeli warnings to abandon their villages" as well as "humanitarian convoys and ambulances" that were "clearly marked,"(just as here).Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Don't include - Seems like we'd be extrapolating a bit too much on one comment from one individual. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include per WP:UNDUE. The comment appears pulled out of obscurity, and the secondary opinion/interpretation that it relates to the concept of human shields is extraordinarily inflammatory, and I'm not seeing anywhere near the WP:WEIGHT to include it. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include Seems irrelevant what word-spin is going on, and also sources talk more of events and give statements than have cites talking about the wording of the statements so you'd wind up at fringe discussions or OR. Just do not driven there by prominence nor following something so do not go there. Markbassett (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• 3 of the four sources you cite are RS only in the sense of the abbreviation for rat ####. Please read Human shield esp.this section and Neve Gordon and Nicola Peruigini, On 'human shielding' in Gaza Al-Jazeera 18 July 2014. Calls by Hamas to stay on and not flee are identical to the calls by Yishuv leaders to Jews in Kfar Etzion and Jerusalem to stay there and not flee. To spin this, as the IDF press handouts have repeatedly as compelling unwilling people at gunpoint to get killed, while militants hide behind them is, frankly, obscene. There are numerous examples from Masada right down to the present day in Jewish history, and world military history, of what is being spun here as a coerced stay-behind behaviour of civilians. Of course, it would be easier for Israel to request that all Hamas fighters emerge from their tunnels and play by the rules of war, as drones and F4 Fighter planes, and satellites pinpoint them, and the ultra-sophisticated guidance systems of tanks and drones liquidate them. That's the premise. Hamas militants are cowards, whereas the whole army shooting at a safe technological distance of miles is heroic, defending the fatherland while killing what remains of the adversary's.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So, there are sources that are not rat ####, and in the other articles, we discuss the actions by Israel in a similar context. So your !vote is an include then? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Washington Post just picked up the hasbara, and we know from past studies this is propaganda. No one is editing in significant elements of the damage to the civilian population while people like yourself appear to be avid to press home a known piece of hasbara that implies all civilians deaths are forms of coerced suicide. Israel has, as anyone in the West Bank can tell you, consistently used kids as shields over the last 20 years, it has been condemned by Israel's Supreme Court for doing so, and persists. It now had the shamelessness to accuse Hamas of the very unmanly act its own troops have often employed, even in the last invasion of northern Gaza.

My point is that this is an IDF meme, not an element of the battle front, and the function of the meme is to suggest to readers that the casualties in Israel's onslaught, despite 10 documented cases in the Ist three days which look like war crimes because strike after strike whole families were wiped out, are not Israel's fault, but a result, as the IDF put out in the Kaware's case, of Hamas constraining people to expose themselves to the 'innocent' destruction of houses of human habitation. The article is (I could write 20 pages on this) already like an IDF handout, and further attempts to 'screw' the other POV, almost invisible, are unacceptable, esp. since editors here are wholly disinterested generally in any other story than the one spun by the 4th most powerful army in the world and its ally, (the United States of Amnesia), whose purity of arms every two years consists in massacring a captive population. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My computer stalls whenever I open the Economist. The statement below looks like a reference to the Kaware family incident, it is false, or at least not factual. See under Kaware at List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge.

Seven members of a family were killed when they climbed on the roof of their house to act as a human shield, however, their home was still struck despite their action.(Israelis and Palestinians: From two wrongs, ruin, The Economist)

Sources at the time of the article 12 often repeated this, and the Economist has taken it up. You need in-depth interviews to work what the motives were. In the Kaware case, it appears some children went on the roof to check out the damage to a solar heating device hit by a rocket (which they took to be a near-miss, as the family thought the danger period had passed and reentered the house). Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the addition by Gaijin42 as it violates WP:SYNTH:

• Statement 1: "...Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the storage of weapons in schools, videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings".
• Statement 2: "a video of Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri saying 'The fact that people are willing to sacrifice themselves against Israeli warplanes in order to protect their homes, I believe this strategy is proving itself'."

Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not violate synth, the very first reference includes all of those points. As for the Kaware family, the New York times has a direct quote from the Kaware family saying "Our neighbors came in to form a human shield" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/world/middleeast/by-phone-and-leaflet-israeli-attackers-warn-gazans.html Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And I note that your quotes dropped the attribution which was "As evidence of Israel's allegations that Hamas is using human shields, they have pointed to the" which makes it clear that this is a statement by a party, and not a fact in wikipedia's voice. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the New York Times. The B'tselem report gives a completely different account. There are in fact several conflicting versions, as one would expect from rapid interviews in an area under bombardment. What is known is that this is a meme strongly favoured by the Israeli government spinning of the high civilian casualty rate, as it has been in the two preceding wars. On the ground interviews with numerous survivors are numerous, and popular opinion in Gaza denies that their relatives, or themselves, are shot at, bombed or killed because Hamas orders them to behave as shields. You can get this in Peter Beaumont's coverage of the famous Beit Hanoun donkey herder, or in Hamas using human shields? Gazans deny claims, or any number of articles. The reasons people stay put include Hamas's desire that they do so, their own preference to stay knit together in their homes rather than outside, their fatalism (Inshallah), the lack of nearby shelters. As one person said:"Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It's not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it's the Israelis."

Given the ideological spinning, bravery and defiance even, confidence that standing on roofs saved some houses years ago, why not now, with outs, etc. in short cultural practices and beliefs, and physical difficulties in moving round a war zone, the extensive focus in that section on Israel's singular meme is WP:Undue. If the NYTs says one thing, and B'tselem another, on the Kaware family, you just can't cite the former as the true version of people's motives. It may happen to be, indeed, what one member of the Kaware family believed, but that may be an exception. It may be a boast, it may be a way of a survivor proving his loyalty to the Hamas government after a truce, to secure a benefit from Hamas authorities, if he, and they are still alive. Life is complex, motivations idem, and war reportage that ignores these complexities and peculiarities is, just that, POV spinning by military and political parties. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have many issues with Gaijin42's edit. 1. There is a RfC over whether to use the Hamas leader's statement in conjunction with human shields. I opposed it there and still oppose it now. The statement by the Hamas leader is notable, but it is not a call for human shielding, and it certainly does not show that people stayed in their homes because of Hamas forcing them to. I haven't heard any arguments there as to how it counts as human shielding. Even if one calls it "shielding", it does not count as "human shielding" unless the Hamas leader asked them to shield combat targets and not their homes. From the comments there, I do not see much agreement there either. 2. The USA today article simply attributes the "human shields" claim to Israel and mentions the Hamas video and then it quotes the IDF blog directly. It does not render any judgement about whether it counts as human shielding. I don't know if the claim becomes more respectable, just because it is laundered through a source (USA Today) which takes the claim directly from Israel and regurgitates it on the its pages. 3. What about the B'Tselem investigation of the Kaware family mentioned by Nishidani, which deals with this issue in detail? 4. This business of giving warnings etc. There have been reports of Hamas's assurances making people complacent and thus they didn't leave. First of all, the Goldstone commission even last time addressed this issue, saying that in the vast majority of the cases, after the calls to evacuate etc. there was no attack. They concluded it was more of psychological warfare than anything else. This also the point made here: [2] Ordering out 100,000 people from their homes is not a legitimate strategy. Secondly, the responsibility does not end just because you give a warning to evacuate. This has been addressed by B'Tselem in the analysis of the Kaware family. 5. Finally, if this statement is to be included anyway over my objections, I would request that some other word than "evidence" be used since I do not see this as much evidence of human shielding. Kingsindian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing "evidence" to some other word(s) that means "this is what israel pointed to to support their allegations"

ordering people out of their homes to wander off from a potential danger zone goes back to the 1948 war, and one reason the city of Lydda was ethnically cleansed was to throw 50,000 people onto the Jordanian army and fuck up its food and equipment logistics for war, by forcing on it the duty of coping with civilians. Numerous other examples come to mind of war tactics. Throwing 150,000 people out of their homes by warnings has all sorts of secondary calculations like these (creating popular disenchantment with Hamas if it can't cope being not the least of them) not only those regarding the need to clear an area so it can be carpetbombed.Nishidani (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to put in sourced arguments or statements to the contrary, do so. But this is a statement by the spokesperson of Hamas, and allegations by Israel that are discussed in numerous top tier sources. If we censored every statement or incident that was disputed by the beligerents it would lead this to be a very empty article wouldn't it? WP:NPOV mandates inclusion of every notable POV. Is it your argument that this POV has not been widely discussed? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My objections have been pretty much conveyed by editor 'Kingsindian'. The current placement of Abu Zuhri's quote is strongly implying that Abu Zuhri (and thus Hamas) are encouraging people to shield combat targets and places where weapons are stored. That is NOT what he said and you know that very well, and no amount of sources making such connection will justify its inclusion in the manner you have put here. Never mind the fact that the usage of "human shield" here is entirely misleading to begin with. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have discussed the quote, directly in the context of the question of if Hamas uses human shields or not. If you have reliable sources disputing this association, please present them and include them as a counterargument in the text. Otherwise your objection is WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Which "reliable reference" conflates between the "storage of weapons in schools" AND Abu Zuhri's call for civilians to stay at targeted areas? While the term "human shields" is used, none of your sources interprets Abu Zuhri's statement as one intended to protect combat targets or storage sites. They all seem to agree that it is reference to the protection of people's own homes (how dare they). The content you added and the way it is presented is implying that Abu Zuhri demanded that people stand firm on top of rocket launchers and accept Israel's air strikes, which is a distortion of what he actually said and I believe that falls under WP:SYNTH. Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that you have not responded for days. I removed the problematic content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of response, I have had various emergencies at work that limited my wikipedia time. I have restored the content. Multiple entities have mentioned the statement, in the context of human shields, along with the other elements discussed. They are not conflated, but they are all discussed as items that people use to back the allegation of human shields. If a source writes a paragraph about each item, and we say "They pointed out A, B, C , and D" that is just WP:SUMMARY not any WP:OR or WP:SYNTHGaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best wording is something like: Israeli has asserted that Hamas uses 'human shields' to defend militants and weapons based on Israeli's analysis of videos and photographs showing civilians on rooftops of buildings, allegations that Hamas has rejected. Or what would you all suggest?

In terms of Zuhri's quote, it's not clear at all (as referred to by many people in the RFC) that's he calling for people to submit themselves into being shields. Putting that spin on it is, well, just that: a certain Israeli-based spin, which is their legitimate POV to assert but shouldn't be written as just a fact. Word it like: Israelis have also cited __'s comment of "__", which they argue is a call for human shielding but Hamas has disputed.? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

CoffeeWithMarketsObviously various people (including myself) may have issues with some final unknown wording, but I think words roughly to the effect of what you have proposed are workable. Israel (and multiple reliable sources) have pointed to certain events and stated an interpretation. That interpretation disputed. I have no objection to categorizing things as the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV of the relevant parties nor providing space for the contrary POV (assuming such can be sourced)- but several above have stated that the allegations/interpretation cannot even be presented, and that is unacceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ll of the "sources" used are opinion pieces (and appear to be from highly partisan ones) and therefore not reliable for making the statement that Hamas admitted to using human shields. It is not obvious from the statement that Hamas was admitting to using human shields. They do not say they are forcing non-combatants to stand between them and the Israelis, nor do they say they are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Whether in fact they are using human shields is another issue, but twisting a statement into a confession is tendentious. TFD (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Times, Newsweek, LaTimes (right wing rag if I ever heard of one!), UsaToday are all partisan? In any case, the RFC is not "Should way say Hamas admitted it" but "should this quote even be discussed" - The current article text clearly says Israel alleges Human shields, and as part of that allegation points to the video. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No they are not partisan, but they publish opinions of people of various views, including partisans of both sides. Claiming that an editorial published in one of these sources is a statement made by the publication is misleading. For example you just posted on my talk page a quote that you attributed to the Globe and Mail., which you also cited above, claiming that Hamas had admitted using human shields. The actual source is an opinion piece by Margaret Wente, a highly partisan columnist for the Globe and Mail who, among other things, has written that Canada should become part of the U.S. Do you understand the difference between news reporting, opinions of publications and the opinions of people asked to contribute their opinions to newspaper columns? TFD (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Yes I do. I also understand the difference between trying to say something in wikipedia's voice, and saying that X has made allegation Y and pointed to Video Z as part of that allegation. or that Z exists and people can make their own judgement about what it means. Nobody on wikipedia is proposing saying "Hamas admitted to using Human shields in this video" (although I admit my statement in the section PRIOR to the RFC can be read that way). There are allegations and discussions about human shields. This video is mentioned repeatedly in those allegations and discussions. Should our article mention the video? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with attributing the claim to some proper source, like Israel and some commentators, or something like that. While it is of course preposterous drivel to me, unfortunately a lot of people, like thos who Gaijin42 cited, do believe in drivel; who am I to say they shouldn't get space on Wikipedia? Properly attributed, the inclusion is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian Would you be so kind as to update your !vote to that effect? Once the matter of basic inclusion is settled, I think conformance to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should not be an issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment' Unarchived section. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:02, 19 August 2014 (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.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close per three month moratorium on move discussions set at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 2#Requested move. Repeated move discussions in very close succession are disruptive. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Future date stamp to keep this from being archived for the duration of the moratorium. Advance Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of sources appear to be calling this a war by now, many by the term "Gaza War". There was a Gaza War in 2008, but perhaps we should name this article to something similar sooner or later. Here are some sources:

• The New York Times
• The Wall Street Journal
• CNN
• New York Post
• Gannett
• Haaretz
• USA Today

There's likely a lot more.--ɱ (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Conflict" is a serious understatement. But first you need to submit a formal move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is mainly just to draw people's attention to the necessity. I don't personally want to be active in such a move debate.--ɱ (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Would "Second Gaza War" be the likely title destination? Tandrum (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "Second Gaza War" is currently being used by sources. "2014 Gaza war" or "Gaza war (2014)" will probably be the likely titles.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict → Gaza War (2014) – Per the above. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead and background

The article is about the "Operation Protective Edge" (or whatever you prefer to call it, if you dislike the IDF name). Acting boldly, I have removed a big chunk of the lead, because it is hugely awkward, and properly refers to the background. Every one of the events in this chunk is mentioned in the background section. And the treatment of those things are much better in that section, instead of a litany of incidents in the lead with no logic for inclusion/exclusion. Already multiple battles are being fought on the this part of the lead including here, here, here, here and here. Kingsindian (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of there being recurring, ongoing disagreement about what to include in the 'background' part in the lead (as recently as right now), and the lead being really long, your bold move of the information to the article body (which I polished up in these edits) was probably for the best. -sche (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:After our positive interchanges, I am somewhat disappointed that you continue to refer to this article as being about "Operation Protective Edge". The title shows that it clearly is not = "2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". We need to achieve closure on this issue because it is leading to grossly inefficient editing by all concerned and a waste of individual time.

I have previously suggested that, if you want to preserve an article named "Operation Protective Edge" then I would fully support that. But then we must DO that, and move the bloated detail about "OPE" to its own page, replacing it with a synopsis in the 2014 overview. In a day or two I will propose a draft Background section that does not violate the subject matter of the current article.

@Erictheenquirer: As you can see on the top of the talk page (and I have also mentioned this in our earlier conversations), there is a 3-month moratorium on moves on this page, therefore, it has to stay with an unsatisfactory title. I did not move the article, but we are stuck with the title name, unless someone puts in a move review request. However even a casual glance at the article shows that 95% (if not higher) of the article is about "Operation Protective Edge". Everyone in this article has been editing as if this deals with "Operation Protective Edge", not the whole of 2014. Most of the issues were with the lead section, which I have trimmed massively. Right now, I do not see much confusion. Kingsindian (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:I accept that. Please see my conclusions at Talk: POV Tag Needed for Article Lead above, where I will continue the discussion.

@Somedifferentstuff: Could you elaborate on why you went back to the previous version? Kingsindian (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Putting a future time stamp to prevent archival. 00:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Move Review

[Created from suggestion in the lead "Requested Move" article] As indicated in Talk:"Requested Move" and in Talk:"POV Tag Needed for Article Lead" this article is being considered for a move to Gaza War (2014). I am not against such a move and title change. It is clearly a world-shattering event. However, the move and the suggested new title of "Gaza War (2014)" creates a topic that is not all-encompassing of the 2014 Israel-Palestine conflict.

But this brings with it a potentially grave problem. According to Talk discussions to date, the Gaza War (2014) article resulting from the move will be more specific than (and in fact a subset of) "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict". This means that a number of 2014 events may no longer have a home without a "2014 Conflict" article, since the build-ups of tensions and the outbreaks of conflicts or continuing conflict issues that cannot be directly assigned as causes of the War with WP:RS, will disappear from Wiki content and not just from the article. It is obvious from past edit history that, even with the current 2014 Conflict title, any contribution that illustrates the build-up of 2014 Israel-Palestine tension but has not been directly related to Operation Protective Edge, is subject to removal. Examples are the 2014 continued Gaza blockade by Israel, the restrictions by Israel on Gaza fishing rights, the attacks by Israel on Gaza, the executions of Palestinian leaders, the continued settler violence, etc. With the change in title it is reasonable to expect that even more will be excised.

I therefore conclude that there are two options:

1. To create a second article on the cause-and-effect chain of conflict (preferably in a time sequence), which will contain the Gaza War (2014) in summary form (since it is a sub-set of the 2014 conflicts) and have a background that starts with the November 2012 Ceasefire Agreement and ends with 2013, or
2. To give Gaza War (2014) ample leeway to have detailed 'Background' and/or 'Precursor events and On-going Conflicts' sections which only have to demonstrate the build-up of tension, and not necessarily be sourced as a specific contribution to the War with WP:RS

Should a solution to a full description of the 2014 cause-and-effect chain of tensions along these lines not be implementable, then I would not support the move because it will distort the historical record, and to request that the current title be fully respected. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There may not be a "cause-and-effect" chain that led to this war, not that we can discern, anyway. I don't think "the historical record" would be distorted by properly focusing this article on the actual war itself, without the "c-a-e" thing. That's a bit of an over-generalization. Hires an editor (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Perhaps your own envisaged contribution fits here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Many thanks for pointing out the precedents for other years. Indeed my envisaged article can go there, but only its summary. As you can see, those previous years had a main article and I cannot think of a better one that "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflicts". Thanks you for pointing this out. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:I regret that I couldn't disagree more with your implication that wars start out of the blue. That YOU cannot discern a chain-of-events leading to them is interesting but inconclusive, and should not prevent any other editor from offering detail to the contrary. That you don't "think" that the record would be distorted by focussing just on the war and not also providing the precursor events is obviously a POV. I "think" otherwise but I am furthermore prepared (and fully intend to) to substantiate my "think" by providing full detail in support of my view and to see data offered to the contrary. Selective memory or cherry-picking are not one of my favourite routes to a full historical appreciation - and I hope that I am correct in presuming that that is the objective of such a Wiki article, and not a one-sided surgical excision of anything that does not promote a favoured result.Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: I would ask that if you disagree, you be careful to be civil about it. I certainly don't appreciate that you're accusing me of being clueless ("YOU cannot discern"), nor that I'm pushing a POV here, when really, I'd like to limit the scope of the article, and so far the events leading up to the war are in dispute, and undecided upon. Too many different sources say too many different things regarding why Israel decided to invade at the time that it did. Correlation does not imply causation - this is why I say it's difficult to know. I realize that for other wars it's easy to figure things out, but this particular war it's not the case. I also object to the way you seem to discredit "thinking" with scare quotes. Your sarcasm and arrogance are insulting, and no one needs that. I don't have an opinion about this except that it accurately reflect reality, and this topic finds itself very clouded as it relates to reality, since the various sides/factions/actors/commentators/observers feel so strongly about it, and have different and opposing agendas. Hires an editor (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:Admonishments accepted.

Back to process and content. I agree that the facts as to the origin of OPE are cloudy. I also agree that there are many issues and events which may have led to an escalation of tensions and conflict but which cannot be attributed WP:RS to be direct causes of OPE without challenge. But that editorial dilemma is nothing new to Wiki. Some comparable Wiki articles contain such chains-of-events (without direct causative links to the main offensive) within the text of the main article - examples: the Tet Offensive; Operation Desert Storm; United States invasion of Panama; Operation Cast Lead; Yom Kippur War. Others have separate articles concerning the lead-up to major conflicts such as Origins of the Six-Day War; Lead-up to the Iraq War; Events leading to the Falklands War; Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Precursor 'events and issues' are therefore a well-established Wiki precedent, demonstrating that the choice between the options (within or separate) is a question of preference and not of Wiki-validity.

Additionally: Inconsistency 1 - The fact is that the title of the article still is "2014 Israel-Gaza conflict", and that is far more ample that just the bare operation itself. Yet many of my contributions under the actual title have been reverted because they are not specific to OPE, even though they were specific to '2014 Conflict". Hence my frustration and snapping. This anomaly in the form of an existing title that does not reflect what some 'reverting' editors consider the piece should be titled (but is not) is, to say the least, disruptive as we have seen.

Inconsistency 2 - There are certain precursor events which ARE currently in the "2014 Conflicts" article, even though there are also disputes regarding the directness of their contribution. A classic case is the allowance in text of one out of three sets of Teenager killings during the precursor period, with the other two being absent. In strictly rejecting events whose contribution to OPE are not unanimous could mean that there can be only one precursor event to OPE, namely the dramatic increase in rocket fire from Gaza on 7 July. In ruling out earlier events whose direct link to OPE are disputed, we would therefore be obliged to leave out the IDF strike on Gaza of 6 July because it cannot be directly related to OPE, but only to the increase in rocket attacks earlier on the day of OPE initiation. Given this dilemma and the Wiki precedents previously noted, my conclusion was that 2 articles would be warranted: One would keep OPE confined and detailed with specifics, as you suggested, and the other could be "Lead-up to the Gaza War (2014)" or "Origins of Operation Protective Edge", or "2014 Israel-Gaza tension escalation" or .. etc. I am personally amenable to either option, although I have a preference for an (eventual) Operation Protective Edge that is not too bloated.

@Hires an editor: @Kingsindian: @Nishidani: Any comments, particularly on Wiki precedents for wars both 'large' and 'small', as support for a "Lead-up" article, or is the concept accepted? Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to be careful of forking for POV reasons. I'm not totally rejecting the idea a fork, since there are forks all over the place regarding this subject. I'm just saying we need to be careful. It's difficult to reach consensus, I understand. I think we might want to editorialize (which I don't think it totally violates WP:SYNTH) to say there were events before the war started, but that few and/or none can be considered directly attributable to the start of the war. We know what the stated aims of the war are, based on statements made by both sides, but what actually prompted Israel to invade at the exact time it did will likely remain in doubt (only because sources don't seem to agree). I don't agree that an OPE article is warranted, since that is really the Israeli name of the war, and the examples you cited earlier all relate to place naming the conflicts; additionally I believe that there is further discussion on this topic elsewhere on this talk page (or in archives) that relates to proper naming not including one side's name for the operation. Neither could I easily find a WP guideline for a naming convention regarding the name of military conflicts of various stripes (what constitutes a skirmish/conflict/war? And at what point do they get names?). So, having said all of that, I think "Gaza War (2014)" should be the title of the article, and that should help narrow the scope, and prevent the background section from getting too long, and make the article be about something specific, and remove questions of what is this article about...

And by the way, we may want to request more editors to get involved in this page, since I was seeing maybe 4 people making regular contributions, and I think that can lead to some undesirable outcomes as it relates to bias. Hires an editor (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hires an editor:Many thanks for that positive explanation. I read the definition of forking and I believe there is zero probability of that happening in this case. From the Move debate, I am fully supportive of the move and the title Gaza War (2014). I would suggest that there would be little disagreement that the Gaza War (2014) started on 6 July with the IAF air strikes on Gaza, followed by the Gaza rocket barrage and then OPE. The article that I am proposing ENDS on 6 July, and will almost certainly start on 25th November 2012 = no possibility of forking. Erictheenquirer (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza War 2014 works as a more neutral alternative to the arguably loaded name Operation Protective Edge. However:

• How can one say if it is a war or not ? There is warfare going on, but isn't a formal declaration by either side, and least retroactively, needed to call it a war ? Maybe we can use some other term between war and conflict, such as fighting or hostilities until this is officially a war ?
• Lacking a formal declaration of war, who said that 6th of July is the start date ? Does it not constitute OR to pick a date arbitrarily ? Arguably, there were events before the 6th that are as relevant. One point I see is July 8, when Operation Brother's Keeper ended and OPE began. Since there is no dedicated article for OBK, it can be bundled in as well - then the starting point would be the kidnapping of the teenagers. WarKosign (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You do not have to declare war for it to be classed as a war.Gaza War 2014 is a good neutral title.GGranddad (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:GGranddad - also, the Wiki precedents are copious. Regarding the "start", both in the Talk sections on this page and in Wikipedia:Move review there is consensus that the moved/renamed article should be directly related to the War. It has been repeatedly emphasised that if conflicts that are not part of the War are included, it opens the door once again to circuitous debate as to which "non-attacks" might be "more pertinent" that others with the risk of the Tyranny of the majority (sensu Olson). The first actual 'noteworthy' attack as such occurred on 6 July. This does not mean that I disagree with you that there are pre-cursor issues that should be recorded in Wiki, just not in this article, and particularly not in detail. There are ample Wiki precedents for this type of a redirect to a "Main" article for the Background summary. And I would suggest that such a summary should indeed correspond to any separate article, but in much abbreviated style. Such precedents in Wiki are provided on this Talk page and in Wikipedia:Move review. Erictheenquirer (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists

Can we please keep some perspective on this section? Nobody claims that there was no intimidation whatsoever by Hamas. But please, think a bit about what you're doing. The killing of 8 journalists gets one line in this section, while the intimidation of journalists goes on and on and on and on and on, taking up a full page. Please have some perspective. In my view the intimidation part needs to be drastically condensed, with pro- and con- presented, to one paragraph, not more than half the total section at most. I have discussed this at length on this page before, but people keep insisting on adding more and more stuff. Kingsindian (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That can be objectively dealt with also by creating a subpage for attacks on journalists, not by selectively removing some of many attacks, (which allegedly included even physical torture) on journalist during this war. Also there are similar problems with other sections. Third, if 8 journalist were killed, this needs to be written in the article too (as it is not), expanded, with reliable sources (which is missing). Currently there is just one source, the Maan agency, documenting the death of 3 journalists of Hamas Al Aqsa TV. The 3 foreign journalist who died while Hamas operatives tried to defuse the unexploded Israeli bomb, did not die as a result of attacks on journalist, so this does not belong to this section.--Tritomex (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas Al Aqsa TV is designated by USA as a "terrorist entity" According to US Al Aqsa TV is part of "terrorist infrastructure" and "USA will not distinguish between a business financed and controlled by a terrorist group, such as Al-Aqsa Television, and the terrorist group itself, .[3] I do not want to take side on this question, but the article must come clear, that there is not a universal understanding that the 3 Al Aqsa TV operatives were just journalists.Tritomex (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Similar labels for Al Aqsa TV, were given by the government of France.[4]

@Tritomex: Of course a section can be made more balanced by a) expanding some things or b) condensing some other things. If you feel that there should be a separate article on "Attacks on journalists", go ahead and create it. Right now, I see this section as taking more space than "rocket attacks on civilians", "destruction of homes" and "infrastructure" sections combined. This is wildly WP:UNDUE. In my opinion, condensing this section is correct option. Kingsindian (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex:So what's that got to do with the price of fish? Al-Aqsa tv is a propaganda channel for Hamas, just as Arutz Sheva is for settlers, or the New York Times for middle class morons who want to feel comfortable about bad things their government does. It is absolutely pointless trying to use sources to make some idiotic statement like the one you propose. What the US might think of al-Aqsa TV is immaterial and undue. It does not recruit, train and engage in terrorist acts.Who gives a fuck what that government happens to say it thinks (it doesn't) of an hardly notable Arab tv channel?, itself a state that defies international law, consistently subverts other states, has launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, of the 248 conflicts since that date, has been formally condemned for its violation of Nicaraguan sovereignty and has [Legality of the Iraq War|invaded a foreign state without any other pretext than a series of suspicions, known to have been fabricated]. Even its defenders treat the argument that its behaviour fits its own definition of a rogue state seriously. Not for that do we rush round plastering 'rogue state' refs for every article on the US. As A.B. Yehoshua says, calling Hamas a 'terrorist organization' is pointless. Such attribution of absurdly subjective external 'state' opinions serve only to insinuate trivial nonsense.

If you want to fuss up a full length article, go ahead, and take care to mention both sides. I.e., numerous attacks on journalists and artists protesting the war in Israel. Israel was condemned by Human Rights Watch for unprovoked attacks on Palestinian journalists during the 2012 war. Just as Reporters without Borders has complained of attacks on journalists within Gaza this time round, as they complain of Israel's firing at journalists covering the West Bank. Sayed Kashua has people threatening to break his legs or kidnap his children for what he has written recently on the war, so he has broken with the state in whose language he writes so eloquently, and has felt he must expatriate and learn to write in English. Gideon Levy of Haaretz is under 24/7 armed escort because of numerous death threats from Israeli groups for the way he covered the war: his death has already been forecast by an Israeli activist attorney on Facebook. There are dozens of examples, if you really want to push this.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop soapboxing Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM for your views.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, of course is right about the issues, and gives a lot of sources to include in any separate article. However, I want to keep the current section focused on condensing the section in the current article, which is grotesquely bloated. If everyone agrees on that, I will replace the section with a condensed summary, hopefully in a day or so. Kingsindian (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, read WP:NPOV and try to edit accordingly. My views sum the sources given and they were provided to intimate to Tritomex that, as Kingsindian suggested, he's only digging a hole for himself if he pursues expansion, since there is a mass of evidence that could be, but that I for one won't add, on Israeli pressures on journalists, and that jumping at a few articles referring to Hamas and journalism to spin a government line while ignoring these would both violate WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. Lastly, it's often forgotten that this is a global encyclopedia, and that what the US or Canada or others spin is, to billions of people, boring or a sheer hypocritical pretext for the assertion of power interests. Many users have to be reminded of that, because they tend, in their edits, to confuse mainstream information with what a few outlets in interested western countries say. It is not to abuse WP:FORUM to remind editors to drop our provincialism, and read more widely. Meaning here, that Hamas is not considered a terrorist organization by a lot of countries: al-Qaeda expelled the future founders of ISIS because its leaders found them too 'terroristic', and in respect of those two vile organizations, Hamas is, in non-Western terms, quite 'liberal' (Christians live under its sway), as compared to a Western 'ally' like Saudi Arabia. I commend therefore attempts to sum this section up in a few balanced, well sourced lines, that cover complaints about Israel and Hamas equally.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times or Arutz Sheva is not considered by USA and EU, as "terrorist entity" while Al Aqsa TV is considered as such, and the USA officially declared all Al Aqsa TV operatives as "terrorists" This can be seen from official US government sources mentioned above. I do not take sides on the question whether this Al Aqsa TV operatives are journalist or not, for huge part of world they are not considered as such, and this can not be just left out of the article. For the rest I can fully agree with Shrike, this is not the place to discuss unrelated issues. There are relevant articles and sections where such issues could be mentioned. If eventual Israeli attacks on journalist happened during this war, this must be also added to this section as per WP:NPOV if it is not done yet.--Tritomex (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section. I condensed it and removed one clearly undue bit about someone being threatened on twitter, and sorted the information into:

• one paragraph on journalists' deaths,
• one long paragraph on Israel's and others' views that journalists are subject to intimidation,
• one paragraph on views that journalists are not subject to intimidation,
• one paragraph containing a Hamas spokesperson's comment that it questions journalists, and
• one paragraph on Israeli attacks on media stations.

-sche (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Needs much more condensing, especially removal of individual names (French journalist, FT reporter, RT reporter). Can't go on enumerating all the cases like this. Are we going to list every reporter Haaretz spoke to, or every reporter that was killed? This is not a correct procedure. A general statement about this should be enough. Also the Hamas spokesperson has a very long quote, it should be summarized, saying that they did not like reporters reporting on military or intelligence matters and they interrogated/questioned/told them about it. If someone else wants to do this, they can, otherwise I will do it tomorrow, because of 1RR restriction. Kingsindian (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to remove the names, especially not the reasons and circumstances of the attacks. This are very important issues. In my view this is now fully WP:NPOV and objective as all events and sides were given equal cc space. Additional changes would make it unbalanced and would require additional chamnges.--Tritomex (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Reasons for not removing the names? As I mentioned already, we can't enumerate all the cases like this. What issues are the names adding? They are all mentioned already (intimidation, threatening of journalists, etc.) Kingsindian (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why not to add specific attacks on journalists. This is the subject of this section. We already went to individual narratives (on less important issues) when we added "Jodi Rudoren, who wrote "every reporter I’ve met who was in Gaza during [the] war says this Israeli/now FPA narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense.”[384] The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interviewed many foreign journalists and found "all but a few of the journalists deny any such pressure". They said Hamas' intimidation was no worse than they have gotten from the IDF, and said no armed forces would permit reporters to broadcast militarily sensitive information. Furthermore, most reporters seldom saw Hamas fighters, because they fought from concealed locations and in places that were too dangerous to approach." So selective removals are not justified.--Tritomex (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding sources, but due to 1RR i have to wait additional 10 hours to fix it.[5][6] --Tritomex (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the text of the piece which quotes Rudoren since it is behind a paywall, but I would be happy to include instead, a generic statement saying that many people disagree with the FPA assessment. I do not know why the Haaretz report is called "individual narrative". Having a section "Attack on Journalists" does not mean one has to enumerate all the attacks on journalists. Obviously we are not listing all the people Haaretz talked to, or all the Palestinian journalists who are killed, or their circumstances. I have put a draft of the section here. It addresses all the issues raised above but is condensed. Anyone can comment or put it up, or I can put it up tomorrow. Kingsindian (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rudhoren quote without attribution would look even worse than it looks now. Factual and documented attacks on journalists are much more important for this section, than one newspaper point view based on interview with some unnamed journalist. However, my suggestion was to leave this section as it is. --Tritomex (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I have removed the Rudoren quote entirely in my draft. As to your second point, you have got it entirely backwards. The quality of the Haaretz evidence is much higher than the individual cases. If you want to know the scale of intimidation etc. of a population of 700 journalists (being threatened etc.), there are two ways of doing it. One is the Haaretz way, talking to a sample of journalists and asking them what their experience was. All of them reported little or no intimidation. The second way is to look at a self-selected sample of journalists who reported intimidation. Neither is a scientifically precise method, but the first is much better methodologically. It is fine to include the concerns raised by the 2nd group, but it is not legitimate to enumerate all of them. Kingsindian (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your draft is not in line with WP:NPOV , and such huge rewriting of entire section needs consensus per Wikipedia rules.

International humanitarian law is not subject of this section. Palestinian media news, is not reliable source regarding the number of journalists killed, especially regarding AL Aqsa TV operatives. Specific attacks on journalist can not be censored. (btw attacks on journalists were not self-selected). The fact that foreign media association condemned some of this attack, does not mean that they shouldn't be mentioned in this section specifically dedicated to this topic, in the same way as other condemnation of attacks by international bodies, does not mean that those attacks shouldn't be mentioned. The death of 3 Italian journalists is unrelated to this section. They did not die as a result of attacks on journalists. The compromise done by -sche has my support.--Tritomex (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: The search for consensus is precisely the reason I made a draft and did not edit in the main space. I hardly rewrote the entire section. I only expanded slightly the first paragraph and condensed the last. The killing of the Italian journalist is already present in the current version. If someone wants to make an argument as to why it should be removed, I am open to it. I have removed the "Palestinian News" source because it is not needed. If he wishes, -sche can state his opinion about whether the draft I made is better than the current version. I will wait for 24 hours for people to incorporate anything from my draft which they see fit. If, at that time, I still consider the section unsatisfactory, I will open an RfC. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I notice your draft combines "Israel has bombed Hamas' Al-Aqsa radio and TV stations" and "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" into one paragraph. I'm not sure what the logic of combining those subjects is; I think grouping "Israel has made foreign journalists sign a waiver" and "[People say] Hamas intimidates journalists in Gaza", as the article currently does (due to me) makes more sense. I am fine with moving the "Israel has bombed..." paragraph to be above the "Israel has made foreign..." paragraph (indeed, that makes sense, since it puts it next to the other paragraph on journalists being killed), but I think they should be separate paragraphs. (Perhaps "Israel has made foreign..." and "[People say] Hamas intimidates..." should also be separate paragraphs.) I think you did a good job summarizing/condensing the Hamas spokesperson's comments. I'm not sure wholesale removal of the comments by specific journalists is desirable, though I agree that they need to be shortened. There's probably a middle ground between removing them entirely and retaining them intact; I'll take a stab at it in a moment. Have other members of the FPA besides Rudoren (and the unnamed reporters she says she talked to) criticized the FPA's stance? If so, I could see saying "Members of the FPA are divided over the statement regarding Hamas harassment, with one saying the 'narrative of Hamas harassment is nonsense'." But if not, then (a) it's not accurate to generalize to "members" plural, and (b) it makes sense to retain Rudoren's name. Your changes to the first paragraph were extensive and I'll give feedback on them in a separate comment. -sche (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm having a harder time than I thought I would figuring out how to shorten the comments by specific journalists. I notice that of the three citations which had been given for those comments, one didn't actually contain relevant information, and the other two have been flagged as having POV problems. -sche (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thanks for the comments.

• There is no real logic in the way I combined the waivers. I just wanted to keep all the criticism against one side together. I had initially put the sentence in a paragraph by itself, but it seemed too awkward. It belongs in a paragraph by itself, I think. It is not directly related to intimidation.
• Regarding the FPA statement, I just used the title of Haaretz's report: "Foreign press divided over...". The article is behind a paywall and I do not know what details it gives. But the title is indicative of the disagreement with the FPA statement. The quote by Rudoren also emphasises that she has talked to other journalists. We can assume that she is not lying about this.
• I will add, though this is not relevant to your points, that the inclusion of this particular FPA statement in this section is disturbingly selective. Just take a look at the list of FPA statements in 2014 here. Every statement except this one is criticizing Israel...yet it is the only one included. There is a specific statement on July 23, probably referring to this Avigdor Lieberman criticized Al-Jazeera, and next day, their offices were hit. The statement refers specifically to "incitement" though it does not name the party, all the examples given deal with Israel.
• Regarding the individual journalists. Firstly, my reasoning was that it would simply be WP:UNDUE to talk about individual cases like this, instead of the issues. If we list all the cases of harassment by Hamas, we have to give perhaps 10 times (at least) the space to list all the cases of killings by the other side, given the severity and the number of violations. Secondly, all the issues raised by the individual journalists, namely intimidation, deportation and interrogation, they are all presented. Adding in the individual cases adds nothing at all to the section, except bloat and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping out of this thread for a while; I got distracted in real life. I see that the information has been split into two sections (seems like a good move) and rewritten (looks fine). Cheers, :) -sche (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Subtle anti-Arab racism

"Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel"

Very prejudicial statement. I'd suggest rewording it to sound less racist. This assumes that some countries have some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. JDiala (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But that is not all. The subsection Talk:"Allegations of UN Bias" is the worst case of bias that I have seen during my (admittedly brief) period as a Wiki contributor. It contains text without references; text written in the passive voice; vague allocations such as "critics" when "Israeli commentators" is a far more specific label; it misquotes references; and when only lesser portions of a reference support the article's bias, the alternative view is not mentioned. Just a few examples are:

1. Quote: “The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict.” The supplied citation in fact focusses on the anguish of a UNRWA official at the situation in which “the rights of Palestinians – even their children – are wholesale denied”. The only mention of criticism of UNRWA are in uncited third-party references.
2. The i24 reference is equally appalling, since its lead criticism is based on: “I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll … and I don't see that as a crime.” The same point is raised in another citation as a reason to suspect UNRWA’s trustworthiness. Let us not forget that in the 2006 elections Hamas gained 48% of the vote, probably higher in Gaza due to the number of refugees there. Presumably UNRWA would therefore become more ‘trustworthy’ if it started employing discriminatory hiring practices.
3. Another Asaf Romirowsky piece is quoted as “casting a shadow” over UNRWA, that wording presumably having been chosen because the cited reference uses the word ‘apparently’ to make its most telling point.
4. If those weren’t enough, the Claudia Rosett references take the cake. UNRWA is guilty of bias against Israel because it provides social services to Gaza and thereby relieves Hamas of the burden of having to do so. No … I am quite serious, the UN agency is suspect because it provides humanitarian aid.

Furthermore, the section is justified in the Operation Protective Edge article by “During the present conflict the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question”. May I be permitted to introduce a section named “Western Media bias” by starting with “During the present conflict the impartiality of mainstream Western media sources have fallen under question”? I suspect that I will be reverted before I can wipe my nose.

I suggest that it is this entire subsection that displays an astonishing bias, and not UNRWA. Unless this hopelessly one-sided bigotry is addressed, plus its existence properly justified, I intend to trash the lot. Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Take it all out. The amount of time spent challenging the bona fides of a group that has provided sustenance to the poor for 60 years, educating, clothing and feeding them, not only in Gaza, is frankly obscene. It's WP:Undue also for the fact that if one wanted, for every googlable criticism of UNWRA one could google up hundreds of criticisms of parties actually engaged in militarily supporting one or the other side, and cram the text with it, spamming this article into impossible limits. These articles should be stringently wooed to the facts of what happened, the background, the outcome, established by fairly good reportage.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for 24 hours to see if someone wants to defend the guilty subsection as it is.Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have read further, and here are some more howlers from the current text and citations:

1. Next are the missiles discovered at an UNRWA school that was in recess. In detailing UNRWA's 'untrustworthiness' the citation uses words such as 'apparently','presumably' and 'unclear', the Wiki text turning these into supposed fact = rank bad text and/or citation.
2. Next, the claim that Ocha has been criticised regarding "the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports". The Algemeiner reference provided to support this notes that the sources of the OCHAO data are B’Tselem (an Israeli human rights group established in February 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members), the PCHR (established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists), and Al Mezan (funded by official Dutch, Swiss and Swedish agencies) – "all of which are 'political' NGOs with a less than pristine record on impartiality in Israel-related matters." No mention is made of the fact that the data for Israeli casualties and attacks from Gaza come from the Israeli Security Agency, a 100% Israeli government institution, and that such a source is not required to be subject to any test of 'bias'. This playing-field has a 45º slope.

Forgot to sign Erictheenquirer (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala, Erictheenquirer, and Nishidani: This has already been brought up here. The whole section needs to be rewritten, at the least or simply dumped. Nobody has yet done so. If you want it to happen, you should be WP:BOLD and do it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is well sourced if someone have reliable sources for "western media bias" go ahead and add such section.--Shrike (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Sourcing The fact that it has sources is not enough. This section was added more than a week ago, as I indicated above, by I.am.a.qwerty. It is fundamentally flawed, and 6(!!) people have noticed its fundamental flaws. The original poster has made no replies, nor has (s)he bothered to improve it. It is a mass of scattershot statements attacking the UN on mostly silly charges, all of which have been answered, and none were seen fit to be included by the original poster. There is a whole article on all the criticisms and their replies, if anyone wanted to add it. Unless the original poster tries to at least attempt to fix some of the problems, it deserves to be junked. Kingsindian (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shrike, you reverted without apparently consulting the page or the earlier section where its inadequacy was noted. It's not our burden to perfume POV crap, - I note you haven't trouble to actually improve it, i.e. do some editing on it- the original editor plunking it in there did a poor job, and the best that can be done for it is for it to be excerpted and placed here to be reworked until a consensual version is worked out. This page is already burnt out with bad material, poor organization, over 400 sources, and close to 200,000 bytes which is three times what a comprehensive well-tuned article usually should aim at. So it is self-evident, severe pruning is required, and Eric did so after gaining the approbation of editors on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: They were editorials written by journalists, and even though Wikipedia is open to reporting different viewpoints, if a particular statement which is made is unsubstantiated, erroneous or unencyclopedic, there is no reason why it ought to be included. JDiala (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: et. al. The section title alleges "subtle anti Arab racism" a claim not substantiated in the discussion. I don't see how those who point to structural biases in the UN (50+ Arab countries, likely to be more sympathetic to Palestinian causes over Israeli ones vs. a sole Jewish state with few allies other than US, Canada, Australia etc.) as subtle anti-racism. You've got no basis to say that a criticism of an organization's structural and procedural design, intended or not, is somehow "racism."

Its an ethnic conflict, the fact that the voting patterns have consistently been all Muslim and Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority is not "racism." I don't see how dropping allegations of racism furthers the development of this article.

You somehow turn the conversation into the reliability of sources criticizing the UN. That should be done under a seperate section. The fact that you combined the two shows you seek to maximize your argument by mixing "racism" and "reliability" in an effort to create a subtext that all critics of the UN are somehow racist. And using such descriptive terms such as "obscene" "POV crap" "hopelessly one-sided bigotry" is an appeal to emotion rather than logic. I say until this discussion can be conducted without polemical manipulation, we keep the text as it or scrap this discussion until editors can think clearly and remain cool headed. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@I.am.a.qwerty: First of all, the organizational and structural construction of the UN is not of concern. However, suggesting that the racial and religious aspects of the organizational structure are the cause of the structural bias, and that these alleged casual factors are important enough to be considered encyclopedic is another story. That would require justification of the former point, and also justification that the influence of the Arab countries, who are a minority in the UN, overshadows the influence of non-Arab/Muslim countries. Concerning the usage of the term "racism", I don't find it incorrect. The article singled out Arab countries as the source of the alleged UN bias, even though, for example, India, China and Latin America also consistently vote against Israel in general assembly resolutions. Furthermore, certain groups voting for or against something does not imply "structural bias". Every country, other than the ones who abstain from voting, are biased. However, this has nothing to do with their race or religion. If you invoke ethnic background into the discussion as the cause and the source of perceived bias, then that is racial. The statement had racial connotations; it assumes that Arab and Muslim countries possess some sort of inherent bias or disingenuousness in their treatment of Israel on the international stage only because demographically they happen to have Arab or Muslim majorities. That claim needed to be substantiated, which was never done.

Also, your assertion that it's an ethnic conflict is irrelevant. There is an ethnic role, yes, but ethnicity plays a role in almost all conflicts other than maybe civil wars. Ethnicity is a social categorization. You just defining various subsets within the human species (Arab, Jew) in such a way that smaller subsets(Palestinians, Lebanese, Saudis) are a part of the same larger set (Arab) so you can misleadingly assert things like "Arab countries voting against a Jewish state embroiled in a long term conflict with an Arab minority" without acknowledging the fact that the small subsets have their own unique ethnic identity independent to that of a supposed pan-Arab identity, and that there is no evidence that being a part of a greater pan-Arab set is the cause of alleged UN bias or preferential treatment of the Palestinian minority in the land of Palestine. If this were the case, why has the "Arab" Egypt country practically abandoned the Gazans now? Why have the Saudis not played a major role in any aspect of the conflict?

Were "white" countries the source of "UN structural bias" for, say, the fact that it permitted the War in Afghanistan because the United States is also predominately white? The degree to which race and ethnicity play a role in this conflict relative to other political or social variables is debatable. Furthermore, the statement also mentioned religion. If Indonesia votes against Israel, a country which has historically had nothing to do with the conflict, is it because it has a structural bias because of its religion? Again, that's an unsubstantiated assertion and claiming that race and religion are the prime motivating factors of certain countries to vote for or against a particular country in the UN is inherently racist and prejudicial. JDiala (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the section has been moved to the talk page while there is an invitation to work on it. It needs a lot of work before it can be classified as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Kingsindian (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The underlying assumption that Arab/Muslim countries are biased against Israel does sound racist (whether or not it is true http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.1359197/k.6748/UN_Israel__AntiSemitism.htm). How about mentioning that there are 32 UN members that do not recognize Israel ? Is it ok to assume they are biased ? WarKosign (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The site you linked is a partisan source. It does not seem scholarly or WP:Reliable, nor does it have a bibliography to substantiate its assertions. Nevertheless, that is in my view a fair point. You can mention something like "a certain number of countries within the UN do not recognize Israel". Regardless, you still obviously need to prove that these countries, which represent a clear minority relative to the nearly 200 countries within the UN, create some sort of "structural bias". The Goldstone report, for example, was written by a South African self-recognized Zionist. Ban-ki Moon is a Korean. The degree to which the countries which do not recognize Israel affect the UN's reports is most likely negligible. My main point was that there is no need to invoke religion or ethnicity into it. That's all I'm trying to say. JDiala (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

UNRWA section. Work out a consensual version

==Allegations of UN bias==

See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations

During the present conflict, the impartiality of UN agencies operating in a Gaza has fallen under question. Critics allege that the agencies have lost their neutral standing and question their position as unbiased parties. The UN agency UNRWA has faced a number of criticisms during the conflict. Some critics contend that the UN agency lacks accountability and transparency with regards to the distribution and use of foreign funds in the Strip and the hiring of individuals associated with terrorist groups. Critics have also pointed to the three instances during the present conflict where missiles were discovered in UNRWA schools and the agency's subsequent handling of the weapons as casting a shadow over the organization's neutrality in the conflict. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) called for an investigation into the UNRWA's role during the conflict; the U.S. government is UNRWA's leading source of funding. The UN agency OCHA has also been criticized following its publication of causalty figures; critics question the reliability of the sources used in compiling the agency's reports. Presently, Israel and the OCHA dispute the number of civilians killed during the conflict. The OCHA has reported that approximately 70% of Gazans killed were civilians, Israel disputes this and maintains that 45-55% were combatants. Critics also point to structural biases in the UN; Arab and Muslim countries number over 50, ensuring a broad coalition criticizing Israel.

• I can't imagine this given the bloated state of the article, running to more than two lines. We all know this is pol-spin crap, and has its due refutations also. But if Shrike wants it, then he should craft a succinct synthesis summing up the charges and rebuttals.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• This paragraph contains repetition of the rockets in the UNRWA facilities and the disputed civilian percentage. IMO both can be safely removed. Whatever remains belongs under "Alleged violations of IHL/Military use of UN facilities" instead of a separate section.- WarKosign (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• The first three sentences are vague, unreferenced (or in one case lightly-referenced), weaselly-worded aspersions like "Critics allege that..." (when, as noted above, "'Israeli commentators' is a far more specific label"). The sentence "Some critics contend that [...] associated with terrorist groups" may be worth keeping someplace, though I suspect that place is [[Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations]] and not this article. Everything from "Critics have also pointed..." to "... neutrality in the conflict" and everything from "The UN agency OCHA..." to "...45-55% were combatants" is duplication of content which is already present (and better-placed) elsewhere in the article, as WarKosign notes. And the bit about what two US senators think is undue (and, as was noted elsewhere on this talk page, probably just spin for domestic consumption) and should be removed like the Irish politician's views were removed some time ago. The last sentence, which suggests certain ethnic and religious groups are inherently biased, and nations where a majority of the population is of such ethnic or religious groups are therefore also inherently going to take certain stances, is problematic for the reasons noted a few sections up. -sche (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a future timestamp so this does not get archived. 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Gazan tunnels

I've decided to remove some of the irrelevant sentences from this paragraph. This section has multiple issues which should be resolved. Mhhossein (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have replaced the Gazan tunnels section with the lead for the "Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip" section using Wikipedia:Transclusion#Partial_transclusion. The problems with this section are longstanding. See discussion here for the basic discussion. Just search "tunnels" in the archives for plenty more discussion. Kingsindian (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The section makes sense now. You are doing the energy demanding job of taking care of this article. Thanks.Mhhossein (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Indispensable section removed by Avaya1 without discussion. To be expanded.

Gazan rockets

Range of missiles launched from Gaza Strip

The number of rockets used by Gazan militias vary in range, size and lethality. They include the M-302 which is Syrian made (based on a Chinese design), and the locally made M-75 which have the range to target Tel-Aviv. Other rockets include the Soviet Katyusha and Qassams. Hamas has also used a "crude, tactical" drone, reported to be Iranian-made and named "Ababil-1".

Lethality

According to Theodore Postol, the vast majority of Gazan artillery rocket warheads contain 10- to 20-pound explosive loads. Postol claims that these missiles are incapable of causing damage to well-sheltered people. Mark Perry states that "Hamas’ arsenal is considerably weaker today than it was in 2012" and that "Hamas’ Fajr-5 [long range rocket] guidance system was crude, at best, and its warhead nearly non-existent."

Israel

Israel has used air, land and naval weaponry. The aerial weaponry includes drones and F-16 fighter jets. Drones are used to constantly monitor the Gaza strip.

Israel's early warning sirens and extensive shelters have been an effective defense against Gazan rocketry. They are less effective against short-range mortars because of less time to react.

−

IDF Artillery Corps fires 155 mm M-109 howitzer gun, 24 July 2014

Adding future timestamp so it doesn't get archived. 21:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Rockets before July 8

(Issue for Third opinion is the edit here)

Collapsing to prevent confusion for 3O

@Monopoly31121993: Regarding your edit here. The source is the first one cited, by Nathan Thrall. "Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge." Kingsindian (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: The new phrasing is not correct. The text is saying that Hamas began claiming responsibility for rockets which were fired starting 7th July. Not that it claimed responsibility for rockets earlier. Kingsindian (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: The article states:" As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge." --- To me that doesn't mean Hamas began claiming responsibility for the rocket attacks that they began launching on July 7, I believe that it means that they started to claim responsibility for all rocket attacks which they may or may not have already been conducting prior to that date.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: While we discuss this, could you please restore the previous version, which was stable for a long time? Coming to your point. Can we agree that: pre-July 7 rockets were not fired by Hamas. Post July 7 rockets included rockets by Hamas. This is what the text said earlier. "The stated aim of the operation was to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which several non-Hamas affiliated groups had engaged in launching in June in response..." and "After an Israeli Air Force airstrike killed 7 Hamas members, Hamas itself fired rockets into Israel." This is the essential point, and it should be like that in the lead. All the nuances about "responsibility" can be mentioned in the background section. Kingsindian (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not going to revert it. It reflects what was said in the article. If Hamas claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks then they claimed responsibility for the rocket attacks.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: I have asked for a WP:3O. Kingsindian (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)You have deliberately falsified the plain meaning of the sense, and, having been warned, persist in the error. This is a reportable offence, and such behaviour on this page, which is under strong sanctions because of the bad editors the topic tends to attract, has zero tolerance of WP:OR falsifications like these. You can be reported, so reconsider. The text in any case must be reverted compulsorily, because it distorts what the sources say. Hamas assumed responsibility for the rockets it fired from that date. It did not assume responsibility for rockets fired earlier which, it should be specified, were fired by other groups in protest against the West Bank crackdown. Even Blind Freddy and his dog can see that in the sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, when I checked the sources I thought the same thing Monopoly did. The point is that Hamas, which provides safe haven to a variety of militant groups, allowed these attacks on Israel. They did so to avoid being seen as sell outs like Abbas and Egypt.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think they provide "safe haven" for a variety of militant groups at all. I believe the fact is that Hamas cannot control some of the groups and they have had regular crack downs on them as well, example being the 2012 ceasefire in which Hamas did not fire any rockets but some other groups fired a few.I am not sure where you are getting that Hamas allowed other groups to attack Israel,these groups act independently of Hamas, they always have done. GGranddad (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I will address the issue in a moment, but @Kingsindian: as four editors have taken part in this discussion, please note that MarshalN20's decline was correct and your relisting was out of process. Also please note that it is inappropriate to "Collaps[e] to prevent confusion for 3O". Do you really think that a 3O volunteer will be confused by that one post or that a 3O volunteer would fail to read the whole thread, including any collapsed part?

Now to the issue. I have only checked the Thrall source, since that is what you raised. If others sources add or clarify, please identify which sources and how they do so as you progress this discussion. The current version* of the article is clearly inconsistent with the Thrall source, since the article is currently saying "which several Hamas affiliated groups had begun launching in June", whereas Thrall calls them "non-Hamas factions".

However, about what Hamas started taking responsibility for on 7 July, Thrall is simply ambiguous, and any attempt to interpret him either way is WP:OR. Thrall says, "The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets." That's all. He doesn't say which rockets (the earlier ones or only later ones), and he doesn't say whether taking responsibility for rockets meant firing rockets. So both of you are reading more into the Thrall source than what he says. Stfg (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: the "current version" I referred to above is this version, but including it in the template breaks the template :( --Stfg (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg: Thanks for the reply. To your points

• Main point first: The phrase "responsibility" etc. was inserted in the edit being discussed. The original phrasing simply said, that non-Hamas factions were firing rockets before July 6, and Hamas started fire after July 7. Even if one agrees for the sake of argument that the phrasing source is ambiguous, it would not matter for my point. In my opinion, the edit should be reverted to the previous phrasing.
• The "non-Hamas" part is separate and is discussed in a separate section (below). I did not ask for a 3O on that, but I am glad you agree with me :)
• I only collapsed the earlier part because it referred to a separate edit, and I did not want there to be any confusion about which edit we were talking about. I clearly marked the section as collapsed and gave a title. I apologize if you feel it was inappropriate in some way, though I don't see why it is so.
• Regarding MarshalN20's delisting, I had already left a note on the talk page about why I thought that 3O still applies here. In a nutshell, there are still two "camps" so to speak, and the core dispute is the same as before the other two editors joined in. If I have misunderstood the policy, perhaps you can elaborate. Kingsindian (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: In order of your bullets:

• The Thrall sources doesn't say that Hamas started fire after July 7, it only says they took responsibility for the rockets (not saying which) on 7 July. You are reading more into it than what it says.
• Sure, but this isn't a 3O. It's a 5O, which has much wider scope ;)
• 3O asks for comment on the whole discussion. You can't limit what a 3O volunteer might see fit to address.
• WP:3O states clearly, several times, that it's two editors. Not two camps, two editors.

Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg:

• Do you have a suggestion on the phrasing of the lead about "responsibility" etc. -- Just limiting yourself to the Thrall source for now.
• Regarding your second last point, perhaps someone should update this. Kingsindian (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:

• The only thing you can do with an ambiguous statement is to quote it, and it's hard to see the justification for doing that. I think you need to use other sources to explain how and when Hamas became involved.
• Not really. In this thread I don't see that the request was "negotiated on the talk page by summarizing the two viewpoints clearly in advance and agreeing that the parties prefer a third opinion as a light-weight process to use", nor do I feel that the two (now three, but it was two at the time) other viewpoints can be described as having "contributed only a few technical clarifications". --Stfg (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stfg: Thanks again for your time. You are of course correct that the conditions for the FAQ are not really met here in a satisfactory way. I will keep this in mind for the future. Kingsindian (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The stated aim of the operation was to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, which several non-Hamas groups had begun launching in June and which Hamas claimed responsibility for on 7 July following an Israeli crackdown on Hamas members in the West Bank.[35][36][37][38][39] The crackdown was a response to the 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers by Hamas members, which Hamas leadership praised but did not take responsibility for until August 20.[40][41]

(a) As this reads, the 'which' in 'and which Hamas claimed responsibility' means that Thrall said Hamas took responsibility for the rockets fired by non-Hamas groups in June. As the discussion shows, this is not in Thrall, but an inference from the source:-

As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge.

The next day means Hamas, which had officially sought to suppress rocket fire (Thrall), at that point assumed responsibility for rocket fire from all factions in the Gaza Strip (i.e. gave them a green light).

(b) which Hamas leadership praised but did not take responsibility for until August 20.

This is the second extreme distortion of sources. Aruri is not the Hamas leadership, and the detail of his claim does not belong to the lead. Khaled Mashal is speaking for the leadership on August 22 when he, in response to Aruri, denied that the leadership had advance knowledge. The lead as it stands therefore has two pro-Israeli pov spinnings of sources that falsify them, and requires immediate correction. I suggest

An Israeli crackdown on Hamas members and institutions on the West Bank, sparked by the kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers by known Hamas militants led to rocket launchings in solidarity by non-Hamas factions from the Gaza Strip in June. Israel retaliated on July 6 by bombings that killed seven Hamas militants within the Strip. The following day Hamas assumed responsibility for rockets fired from that territory. Israel held Hamas responsible for the kidnappings. The Hamas leadership, while praising the act, denied knowledge of it, a position repeated by Khaled Meshal on August 22.

One point people might object to. The link to the kidnapping and murder article is glossed only as 'kidnapping'. That has to be made for the simple fact that publicly the Israeli government maintained, while blaming Hamas, that they had been kidnapped, not murdered, as we know they knew from the outset. As early linked, the text has been saying Hamas praised the kidnapping and murder, which is untrue. They praised the kidnapping and were, it appears, unaware of the murders. It's the third example of devious manipulation in just one line of the lead.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Spies

Currently, there's at least 40 "spies" executed by Hamas. Is this information in the article? http://www.maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=722518 (recent 18+) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Indeed this is present in the Palestinian casualties section. It is too disjointed and sprawling though. Thanks for bringing the source to our attention. Kingsindian (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted in the casualties section. Yes. It should. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: :@Kingsindian: Any reason why the "spies" killed by Hamas wouldn't go the Israeli side of the casualty list. They are said to be supports of that side, right?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe they should be put under Palestinian, though in a separate subsection. If you look at B'Tselem reports, for example, they have a separate category for this kind of thing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there other examples on Wikipedia where 50+ "spies" and protesters are executed on the streets? It makes sense to try and uphold a standard. If we don't have other examples, it seems more logical not to assume anything, and go with what we know for sure --- that they were Palestinians. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"could not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters because the night vision goggles made everything look green"

@Kingsindian: regarding your edit

This is the paragraph from the source I assume you are paraphrasing:

Avi, the Golani combat soldier, said he often has trouble distinguishing civilians from Hamas fighters while inside Gaza, as some fighters are dressed in plainclothes. “You see everything in green … little green people,” he said of his view through night-vision goggles.

Note that there are two statements: 1. Avi has trouble distinguishing civilians from fighters dressed in plainclothes. 2. Everything in night-vision goggles looks green. Neither Avi nor the author of the article implies that #2 is causing #1 - WarKosign (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You are correct that they are technically separate sentences, but it seems to me that the second sentence is clearly linked to the first. Why is the second sentence present at all, if not linked to the first? If you give me some other arguments, I will revert the edit, while we discuss this. Kingsindian (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Classic case of not understanding what an epexegetic sentence means. The first sentence is the reporter explaining what Avi is saying. The second sentence clarifies it by a direct quote. As the source has been manipulated, replacing Avi's direct comment with 'Soldiers and analysts stated that the policy was that protecting IDF soldiers was a higher priority than protecting Gazan civilians'. The whole text says:

“The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians,” Avi said. “If this means to kill civilians, then OK.”Many soldiers and IDF analysts have confirmed this policy, including Yaron Ezrahi, a professor of political science at Hebrew University. “Israel is more sensitive than any other country in the West to the death of its soldiers,” Ezrahi told the Daily Beast. “The death of [Palestinian] civilians is a moral crisis but is without political impact.”

Huge efforts have been made to plaster the IDF claim that casualties are the result of a human shields policy.One tidbit (from numerous examples I could cite) like this and it is buried by misparaphrase.

Avi's quote is the opposite of 'before they take care'. Before here means, that first we care for our soldiers and then when care for Palestinians. Avi is saying: if caring for our soldiers means Palestinians get killed, that's fine, and this is the 'policy' confirmed by Ezrahi who says in effect, IDF deaths have a political impact, Palestinian deaths do not. The latter are just a moral (i.e. personal) problem with no weight.

So what has been done is not only elide the quote, but reverse its meaning to favour the IDF construction, while misconstruing even the latter.

Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, in addition to this falsification (b) the lead has been fucked up by source twisting. (c)Some idiot who did read the Vanity Fair article plunked in a dubious tag which signals only the source wasn't read, or if read the content disliked, and the tag was tactically placed to insinuate that the text was improbable, which it isn't. Could editors stop manipulating sources please.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoting a single soldier sure seems like undue weight for a nobody. There are higher established sources for the issue of militants wearing civilian clothing and no one made a story out of the night vision thing, which anyone could complain about for a myriad of reasons. In short, better leave the whole thing out. @Nishidani, anecdotal samples are not plastering confirmation. In contrast with your anecdotal soapbox, the Israeli Defense Forces are proven as the most humane force in the middle east, there's plenty of soldiers and IDF analysts that have confirmed that policy, including (insert a few hundred names here). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote (aren't grammar, parsing taught in school any more?) Avi's comment was confirmed as policy in the subsequent text, with due reference to a scholar, which means it is 'exemplary' not idiosyncratic, hence wp-undue claims are ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Regarding the direct quote by Avi about "The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians. If this means to kill civilians, then OK." etc. Personally I do not see much difference between the direct quote and the current quote stating that the priority for protecting soldiers is higher than protecting civilians. If you feel that the quote instead of the general "policy" should be used instead, I am open to it. Kingsindian (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(a)"The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians. If this means to kill civilians, then OK."

Meaning,if caring for our soldiers' safety means killing Palestinian citizens that's fine.

(b)the priority for protecting soldiers is higher than protecting civilians

Meaning, we have two priorities, protecting our soldiers and protecting civilians: the former takes precedence over the latter.

There is a world of difference. (a) means you can kill the 'other's' citizens to ensure the safety of Israeli soldiers (b) means you care for the safety of both, but your own are more important than the others (no mention that you can kill with a good conscience civilians to save soldiers' lives). Yaron Ezrahi says the deaths of IDF soldiers has huge political impact in Israel, that of Palestinian citizens none, so it's not a 'political issue' if Palestinian civilians are killed to save soldiers' lives. (confirming (a). This is simple construal of prose, and can be verified by reading all remarks Avi made in that reportage.

I think the simplest solution is to give the whole quote, rather than paraphrase, which seems to generate controversy. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani, the connection between this anecdotal soldier and scholar analysis is synthesis of unconnected sources. It makes for an absurdity, where wiki-editors can forage for "confirming" (read: plastering!) anecdotal accounts and include them at will in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic value. Others might forage for "disproving" anecdotal accounts, which would make for ridiculousness all around. A value should stick to the main scholar perspectives and not allude to bone collection. Also, Grammar and recent use of 'ridiculous' if fantastic. Let's keep it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Reread the above. Synthesis is not a synonym for synopsis, here of consecutive sentences. There is almost no scholarly analysis in this article. It's based on journalistic reports written to make a deadline. By 'alluding to bone collection' I figure you mean noting in passing that people were killed, something you think 'unscholarly'.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani and Kingsindian: The current interpretation (night goggles make it hard to distinguish civilians from militants, civilian clothes add some confusion) is as valid as another (civilian clothes make it hard to distinguish civilian from militants, they are all green men in the night vision goggles). It is not up to us to decide which of them the author meant. The way it is phrased as the moment, it is OR. I suggest removing the mention of the night goggles, because the article names only the clothes as a reason for confusion. Perhaps this quote doesn't belong here at all, but in the alleged war crimes, as evidence for violation of International_humanitarian_law#Principle_of_distinction WarKosign (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Avi's Merkava tank at Shuja'iyya 'Avi’s 'usually enters in the night, he said, and eliminates any perceived threat in their path with a barrage of artillery shells.' That is the context of his remark about green goggles. He is saying openly goggles make distinguishing who among the green figures is Hamas and who civilian, and perceived threats are eliminated by just shelling. I only introduces the goggles because it cuts reasonable slack for errors by tank commanders. The important point is missed, and it is in the direct quote I made. What has happened is that the quote is suppressed, and we fuss over goggles and obscure by paraphrase. The answer is simply to write.

One Golani Brigade soldier, in the aftermath of the Battle of Shujaìiyya, commented that “The IDF must take care of their soldiers before they take care of Palestinian civilians. . .If this means to kill civilians, then OK.”

Leave the reader to figure it out.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani? I don't get this anecdote? Here's a clearly! better!!! anecdote: "I believe that on the basis of everything that I've seen, that everything the IDF does to protect civilians and to stop the death of innocent civilians is a great deal more than any other army, and it's more than the British and the American armies." - former commander of the British armed forces in Afghanistan.[7] Certainly, a scholar whose views come before that of a common Golani fighter. The anecdotal quote by a nobody soldier, presented to make the IDF look bad is fantastic editing (read: plastering confirmation) pattern. More soapbox, not opinions stated by people of real evaluative position???, is what makes perfect editing patterns... ? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Avi was in the battle zone: his comment is relevant (not objective, but based on his experience), Richard Kemp wasn't and yet is routinely cited on now three occasions (2008, 2012, 2014) for making the same mechanical general assessment that Israel's purity of arms excels all other armies in the history of warfare, in the face of the statistics provided by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'tselem. His comment is subjective, with no basis in direct experience. That is why the former is relevant, the latter not.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Kemp is a joke source, he is trotted out by pro Israeli supporters all the time even though all the evidence against what he says about the IDF is overwhelming.I would prefer to take a statement from someone who was actually there than Kemp anyday of the week. GGranddad (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I do not see any argument as to why you think the 2nd statement is there, if it is not related to the first. Why would someone mention goggles suddenly in the middle of an article? It is not related to anything else that I can see. If you can give me some explanation of why the 2nd sentence is there, I will revert my edit while we discuss. Kingsindian (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: It could be some kind of poetic filler. "When dressed in civilian clothes, all the people look the same. They are all little green figures in the night vision goggles". I believe that per WP:BURDEN it is not up to me to prove that the night goggles are not the reason for the confusion. We agreed that the source does not explicitly say that. I agree with above sentiments that this whole quote is undue weight - with all due respect to the golani soldier Avi, there are better authorities on the subject of IDF policies. WarKosign (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

'IDF policies' are what a defence organization puts out as its public set of principles, and, as with any government or military 'position' is for public consumption and justification. It is not intrinsically 'more relevant' or 'more authoritative'. What soldiers on the frontline say is taken by all historians as crucial for any narrative of events. Try to write a history of any conflict in terms of how the combatant nations's government press releases, recycled in newspapers, report events, and you'll get laughed at in any seminar.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign:

• I am afraid poetic filler is not persuasive at all. One should not be pedantic and lose all common sense. I see no justification at all for the 2nd statement unless it is meant to show difficulty in distinguishing civilians and combatatns.
• As to your point about using the soldier Avi, it is not just him: "Many soldiers and IDF analysts have confirmed this policy, including Yaron Ezrahi, a professor of political science at Hebrew University." As to the quote itself, I have not yet made up my mind about how to present it. Kingsindian (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, the quote is clearly (read: by common sense) undue and it appears this single? source is given undue weight. A simple review this presented source, shows this article presents a single perspective while others clearly exist as well. Writers nowadays are not impartial and if the writer cannot present the full image, it is only common sense for all editors to remember Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic and include other mainstream views, disregarded by this plaster confirmation article, as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, have you read the article? I gave it a look and it is not one sided. Wht's the focus point on Avi rather than the actual analysis and reports on how sides treat the civilian issue? (read: both sides) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have avoided replying to you because you are talking about some other issue. My replies to WarKosign did not talk about undue-ness of the quote, it had to do with whether it was WP:OR to combine the two sentences in my first edit, right at the top of this section. Hope this helps. Kingsindian (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The quote by this nobody is undue so it is a pointless debate. Here's a much higher-value perspective: [8] Add it on top of the other scholars. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The attempt being made here is to game the text by discrediting a perfectly reasonable source. On human shields we have:'Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri specifically called up Gaza civilians on Hamas's Al-Aqsa TV 8 July 2014 to volunteer in effect as human shields, in adopting the policy of the "Jihad-fighting people' highlighted. Fine. It conflicts with what many independent organizations say, and what Gazans say, but it is part of the record. What Avi says may conflict with the IDF official position, but it is endorsed by a scholar. That is why it is included. Attempts to argue only IDF official positions (propaganda) are relevant, and must cancel out why IDF soldiers report, are intrinsically silly. As noted above, wars are not described by restating official government press-releases or theoretical positions.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I reworded the sentence so civilian clothes are mentioned as a reason for confusion and the night vision goggles are mentioned as well, just as in the original article. WarKosign (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I need further explanation. Where is "The attempt being made here is to game the text" coming from? As for the immaculate, indispensable "Avi" (might not even be his real name) -- common sense is that he is an anecdotal nobody with a dislike for his night goggles not also being a mind-reading device (read: that'll be the coolest equipment eva!!1). Seriously though, are there any other mentions of night goggles that this should be considered encyclopedic? I appreciate the effort but what the added value? There's so many things in an urban battle field to obstruct view. For instance, a canopy was much more notable and not mentioned by a nobody but by a plethora of news outlets refurbishing this video/article: [9] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, could you please add a note about the canopy to the article? It certainly had a LOT of exposure. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding two paragraphs in the background section

@Erictheenquirer: I have reverted your good-faith edit here. The consensus reached was to keep the background focused on events directly leading to the conflict. The killings near Ofer prison are not directly connected to the kidnapping of the three teenagers, and some people speculating about this is not enough.

Regarding the killing of Mohammed Abu-Khdeir, that is already mentioned in the paragraph and has its own article. This and the subsequent rioting, which is not directly connected to the conflict, is not necessary and WP:UNDUE.

@Erictheenquirer:We can certainly discuss whether the stuff you have added belongs in this section, but it needs to be condensed hugely, if at all it belongs. Kingsindian (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:Your revert is very significant because with it you have provided more than sufficient justification as to why Wiki needs a separate 2014 article to illustrate the tension and conflict build-up towards Operation Cast Lead. I need to ask you this very directly. What in fact DID start Operation Protective Edge? The official Israeli version is that it was triggered by the barrage of rockets from Gaza on 7 July 2014. So, why are the following in the Background given your definition of the need to keep "the background focused on events directly leading to the conflict"; in other words, what did any of the following have to do DIRECTLY (please note) with OPE? In what way are they too not speculatively linked to OPE given the official Israeli government position:

1. Ariel Sharon withdrawing from Gaza
2. Hamas winning the 2006 elections
3. The disruption by Israel and the USA of the democratic right to govern
4. The economic and physical damage to Gaza
5. First Hamas–Fatah reconciliation (2011)
6. The November 2012 ceasefire agreement
7. Ceasefire violations in 2012/2013
8. The continuing Israeli embargo on Gaza in violation of that agreement
9. The rocket attacks during the first 5 months of 2014
10. The second Hamas-Fatah reconciliation
11. The kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers
12. The immolation of a Palestinian teenager
13. The six rockets from Gaza in six weeks
14. The assassination of Khan Younis
15. [the 7 July 2014 Gaza rocket fire DOES fit your criterion - it is in fact the only one]

@Kingsindian:The second issue with your revert: It brings you into direct conflict with Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict where it clearly states - "For events pertaining to the conflict which occurred before 8 July 2014, see Background of 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict". You have now rendered that invalid. This is all getting distinctly messy and one-sided.

Thirdly, you have deleted the Abu Khdeir murder by immolation completely out of the "2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict" and by implication, also out of any relation to Operation Protective Edge. I refer to this as a further case of one-sidedness, pointing out that by far the largest section of the Background is dedicated to a (highly detailed) account of the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers = two cases of Palestinian teenager murders erased from background; one case of Israeli teenager murders --> mega-exposure. I trust you see where this is all going, perhaps inadvertently. If so, it needs urgent addressing.

I believe that there is now enough evidence, given the various Talk sections here, to show that the 2014 Conflict 'sensu stricto' [as opposed to the Gaza War (2014) or its sub-set, Operation Protective Edge] is being manipulated to the detriment of a balanced view, with a clear aim to give overwhelming emphasis to the pro-Israeli position, and to suppress any justification for Palestinian response, or at best, to have such justification events boxed into isolated pages (yet incomplete) where their cumulative and interlinked effect is removed from Wiki view, while retaining the Israeli position in collective visible prominence. I am watching this very closely and will educate my n00bie self on the Wiki options for formal objection to this biased tilting of the playing field.

Apologies - unsigned Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: Please see WP:BRD. A revert does not necessarily mean that one disagrees with the edit wholesale. It is simply a device made for discussion. Coming to your points.

• It is not up to me to decide what is or isn't related to the conflict. I am guided in the background section based on these sources: Mouin Rabbani, Nathan Thrall, David C Hendrickson, J J Goldberg and the Guardian editorial. None of them mention the killings near Ofer prison and there seems to be no connection that I can see (or more to the point, you have demonstrated) with OPE.
• Secondly, I accept your point about the killing of Mohammed Abu Khdeir given only one line, while the other killing is given a huge paragraph. It have reinstated some of it. (you could also have done it). Note that most of the paragraph is not about the details of the murder of the three teenagers, but about the reaction to it
• As to whether Wiki is being manipulated to favour one side or not, that is of course your opinion and I cannot do much about it, except to ask you to look at my various contributions as a whole and see if you still find such a pattern. Kingsindian (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer:I do not imply that it was you who created the "2014 Conflict" in its current form. I observe that it is skewed in terms of contributions to tension, and I trust that we do not have to stoop to needing to demonstrate that tension leads to conflict. Still, presuming that the move will ultimately take place, does that mean that I can remove all of the entries that are not directly linked to OPE as causative agents? If so, what we are left with are likely to be: The Israeli opposition to the unification government, the Israeli teenager kidnappings, the July 2014 rocket fire on Israel from Gaza; and on the other hand the prior Israeli attacks on Gaza; the Abu Khdeir immolation, the Tariq Khdeir beating, the detentions without charge or trial by Israel, and the clamp-downs and demolition by Israel in Palestinian territory. So where does the rest go? I made a list and there has been no response. Where do the 'Nakba day' killings fit in? Where they not a cause of tension increase; part of the lead-up to 7 July? Where does the continued embargo fit in; a total reneging by Israel of the 2012 ceasefire agreement? It is not a direct cause of OPE, but I know that there are piles of evidence that that was at the forefront of Gazan grievances. What about the rest on the list? What about the fishing restrictions and the injuries to fisherman. They has zero to do with the fomenting of fury before 7 July? Do they all simply slip between the cracks as being irrelevant because the Israelis say they launched OPE because of the tunnels and the rockets? No thank you!!!

What about the precedents in Wiki for "lead-up" to war articles? And where are we on the "move" petition? Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:The above was meant to be addressed to you. Apologies for any confusion. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erictheenquirer: As I mentioned already, it is not up to me to make the determination as to what is, or what isn't related to the conflict. That would be WP:OR. I have listed the sources used in the background section in my reply to you above. You can take a look at them and see if some things which are mentioned, should not be mentioned. Kingsindian (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As to the move review, you can find the discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Improving the "Alleged violations of international humanitarian law" section

I see the following problems and would like to hear objections to the changes I intent to make before I proceed. The main problem is that titles of the violations do not correlate directly to International humanitarian law. Are there other, more specific laws/rules that we can use to assign each violation to the specific rule it violates ?

• Violations by Israel:
  • Civilian Deaths - an alleged violation is of Principle of distinction and/or Necessity and proportionality.
  • Destruction of homes - ditto.
  • Shelling of UNRWA schools - ditto
  • Infrastructures - ditto
  • Attacks on journalists - I don't see it covered by IHL.I know it's "wrong" to attack journalists, but which law does it violate ?

• Violations by Hamas:
  • Human shields and its sub-sections - obviously Principle of distinction
  • Intimidation of journalists - same question as above
  • A missing section - use of militants in civilian clothes. It is mentioned in passing as a part of intimidation of journalists.

- WarKosign (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: I am not sure what exactly you are trying to do. IHL has two basic principles. Proportionality and Distinction. That is correct. But what does this have to do with this section? You are not making judgements based on these principles, the various organizations are. One should mention the various areas which are notable and let the various organizations given their opinions in each area. Kingsindian (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I'm trying to find a list of applicable laws and rules. Area being notable or not is subjective. A set list of rules is an objective way to list all the violations. There is this list, for example International_humanitarian_law#IHL_provisions_and_principles_protecting_civilians, but it also doesn't cover UN or journalists. Or, for example Perfidy - is it a violation of IHL ? is it a war crime ? WarKosign (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: As I said, it is not up to you or me to determine which laws were broken. At the moment, there is no comprehensive report of all the alleged violations, like the Goldstone report, for example. One could have used that as a source in the 2008-9 war. Right now, we have to go by notability, and what the different organizations say about each topic. Kingsindian (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Attacking journalist violates the Geneva convention obviously as they are civilians. GGranddad (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is illegitimate, as proposed, it involves WP:OR. We are not in here to adjudicate what international law says and then evaluate these instances. We are here strictly to transcribe what mainstream news sources report. That is all. There is no margin for working our way round or out of what sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think there is enough space to list all international law issues related to attacks on journalists. For huge part of world, including official US and EU governments, Al Aqsa TV operatives are not considered to be "journalists" but "terrorists" I cited an official US government position, that all employed by Al Aqsa TV should be considered "terrorists". I do not take stand on this issue, and I think no one should take position siding with one or other view. This issue previously raised a huge polemic [10] However this contradictory views on Al Aqsa TV operatives have to be make clear, when they are mentioned in this context.--Tritomex (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The word terrorist is a bit of joke, it is used by state actors to diminish the people who are fighting against them. The Nazis used to call people fighting against them terrorists as well. Also just because America considers someone to be a terrorist does not make it true. Fact is that most of the entire world do not consider Hamas to be terrorists. Anyway these two guys were journalists and deserve the protection under the law.Amnesty and HRW actually considers the bombing of media outlets in Gaza as a war crime.GGranddad (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You have right for your personal opinion and even bias on this issue, outside Wikipedia. For Wikipedia articles, neutrality of editing and respecting all relevant views is a must. Our opinions are not sources for any claims. The opinion of USA government and EU governments, and others is however something that must be taken in consideration when balanced WP:NPOV, edits on this issue is being made. Otherwise anyone could claim, on any subject, whatever is his/her political attitude. its not upon us to judge on Al Aqsa TV operatives, but to present all relevant views.Tritomex (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, we can put forward that the USA and Israel consider all Hamas media workers and journalists are terrorists while stating that the entire rest of the world does not think so.GGranddad (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, pending that you have reliable source that the "entire rest of world" does not think so.Tritomex (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex, please desist. When Israel wiped out the 42 graduates of a Gaza police academy in the first hour of the 2008 operation, and then murdered another 200 while bombing police stations, international law experts said that this was a violation of international law. The Goldstone report, to cite one of many that distinguish police from the military in a state, found:

The Mission examined the attacks against six police facilities, four of them during the first minutes of the military operations on 27 December 2008, resulting in the death of 99policemen and nine members of the public. Overall, the approximately 240 policemen killed by Israeliforces constitute more than one sixth of the Palestinian casualties. The circumstances of the attacks seem to indicate, and the Government of Israel’s July 2009 report on the military operations confirm, that the policemen were deliberately targeted and killed on the ground that the police, as an institution or a large part of the policemen individually, are, in the Government of Israel’s view, part of the Palestinian military forces in Gaza. 34. To examine whether the attacks against the police were compatible with the principle of distinction between civilian and military objects and persons, the Mission analysed the institutional development of the Gaza police since Hamas took complete control of Gaza in July 2007 and merged the Gaza police with the “Executive Force” it had created after its election victory. The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency. The Mission also concludes that the policemen killed on 27 December 2008 cannot be said to have been taking a direct part in hostilities and thus did not lose their civilian immunity from direct attack as civilians on this basis. The Mission accepts that there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants. It concludes, however, that the attacks against the police facilities on the first day of the armed operations failed to strike an acceptable balance between the direct military advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may have been members of Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life i.e. the other policemen killed and members of the public who would inevitably have been present or in the vicinity), and therefore violated international humanitarian law.

To be a member of Hamas is not to be a terrorist, except as a POV. Terrorist organizations do not sign documents, as Hamas just did, which allow the ICJ to bring any of their members to justice, if they are accused, as the US, Eu, and Israel may wish to do, of terroristic acts. As is well known, the US itself has granted exemption from prosecution to many convicted terrorists, and refuses to sign precisely the protocols that would open its own actions in foreign countries to prosecution for terrorism.Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention to discuss 2008 or 2012 events, nor I wish to take stand what Hamas is. Wikipedia is not a forum. I would like to have the exact list of each country standing on this issue, to know exactly what neutral editing on this subject requires. As far as I found only 2 countries outside Arab and Islamic world, explicitly stated not to consider Hamas a terrorist organization (Russia, and China) while inside Arab world, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan banned or designed Hamas as terrorist organization, as did all EU countries, Australia, Japan, United States, New Zeeland, Canada and Mexico, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia) I do not have knowledge about the position of other countries (South American states, Africa, South Korea, and even other Arab countries for example). If someone knows reliable source on this issue, it could be helpful, for all editors.

What I want to ask everyone, once again, is to adhere to 1RR, as there were again serious breaches of this rule, in last few days.--Tritomex (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR. One comment: anyone can sign a paper. Even a law less terrorist organization like ISIS or Hamas. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

55 total Palestinians have reportedly been executed by Hamas

75+ if you count the Palestinian protesters being killed. If this reaches a certain number, should this get it's own section under Palestinian casualties? Maybe be called "Palestinians killed by Palestinians (or Hamas)" Knightmare72589 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Knightmare72589: There is a section, feel free to add relevant information backed by reliable sources. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for at least 3 separate waves of executions and another killing of 20 demonstrators in july and early august.--Tritomex (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, be kind and add it to the casualties template at the head of the article. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It sums up to 88 or 113 people:

• 20 + 30 on July 30
• 2 "a few days later"
• 3+18 on August 21 and 22
• 4 more on August 23
• Strangling Necks" on 21 and 22nd of August - 25. Is it the same as 3+18 above ?
• 1 - hamas co-founder
• Hamas's rockets falling short - at least 10

Currently the casualties table contains a note with a link to this section. I would prefer to add the number of casualties there, but it probably goes above permitted by WP:CALC. WarKosign (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: This kind of thing would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The information comes from different sources, and is of varying quality and reliability. One cannot simply lump them all together. There needs to be a reliable, secondary source doing the calculation, not editors. Kingsindian (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Rockets pre July 6 and post July 6

Regarding chronology of rocket fire. Basic claim is: Pre July 6 rockets were fired by non-Hamas groups. Post July 6 rockets were fired by Hamas. Here are the sources. Some may be ambiguous, but taken together, demonstrate the point, I think. Virtually everyone dates the start of Hamas rocket fire at July 6.

• The American Conservative "July 6, Israeli air force bombs a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. The bombing ended a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had prevailed since 2011 (probably a typo - me). Hamas responded with a barrage of rockets, and Israel launched Operation Protective Edge."
• Nathan Thrall "As protests spread through Israel and Jerusalem, militants in Gaza from non-Hamas factions began firing rockets and mortars in solidarity. Sensing Israel’s vulnerability and the Ramallah leadership’s weakness, Hamas leaders called for the protests to grow into a third intifada. When the rocket fire increased, they found themselves drawn into a new confrontation: they couldn’t be seen suppressing the rocket attacks while calling for a mass uprising. Israel’s retaliation culminated in the 6 July bombings that killed seven Hamas militants, the largest number of fatalities inflicted on the group in several months. The next day Hamas began taking responsibility for the rockets. Israel then announced Operation Protective Edge."
• Mouin Rabbani "On the night of 6 July, an Israeli air raid resulted in the death of seven Hamas militants. Hamas responded with sustained missile attacks deep into Israel, escalating further as Israel launched its full-scale onslaught."
• New Republic: " Then on July 6, the Israeli air force bombed a tunnel in Gaza, killing six Hamas men. Before that, there had been sporadic rocket attacks against Israeli from outlier groups, but afterwards, Hamas took responsibility for and increased the rocket attacks against Israel, and the Israeli government launched “Operation Protective Edge” against Hamas in Gaza. "
• The National Interest (Also quotes 3 others in this list) "Israel not only arrested fifty-one Hamas members released in the exchange for Gilad Shalit, but also conducted thirty-four airstrikes on Gaza on July 1 and killed six Hamas men in a bombing raid on a tunnel in Gaza on July 6. After these Israeli actions, came a big volley of Hamas rockets, then Operation Protective Edge"
• Larry Derfner "Then on Sunday, as many as nine Hamas men were killed in a Gazan tunnel that Israel bombed, saying it was going to be used for a terror attack. The next day nearly 100 rockets were fired at Israel. This time Hamas took responsibility for launching some of the rockets – a week after Netanyahu, for the first time since November 2012, accused it of breaking the ceasefire."

I found only one which disagrees. It is quite possible that he is simply not differentiating between Hamas and non-Hamas factions.

J J Goldberg "On June 29, an Israeli air attack on a rocket squad killed a Hamas operative. Hamas protested. The next day it unleashed a rocket barrage, its first since 2012. The cease-fire was over"

Kingsindian (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the context of the distinction between Hamas and non-Hamas ? Hamas is the acting government of the strip, it is responsible for the actions of all the groups. WarKosign (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So the British government is responsible for everything that happens in the UK then? All the murders, child abuse etc etc? Just because you are the government of somewhere does not mean you are responsible for other people's actions.Non Hamas groups are obviously not Hamas, like Islamic Jihad fire rockets but they are not Hamas. Anyway, Hamas are not the government there anymore, they stepped down a while back now.GGranddad (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is pointless for wiki-editors to debate responsibility. Leave that to the silly journalists and the sillier analysts. You are wrong about Hamas, though. They are the de-facto sovereign, have never stepped down, and you shouldn't repeat such claims without serious sources to back it up. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: British government is most definitely responsible for everything that happens in the UK. It is responsible to try and prevent acts of crime or to solve them after they happened, catch and judge or extradite the criminals. In our case, there was the kidnapping and murder of the 3 Israeli teenagers by some Gazans that Hamas claimed were not its members. Hamas congratulated the murderers and showed no intention of arresting them. When Israelis committed kidnapping and murder of a teenager, they were quickly caught and are now under investigation and facing charges of premeditated murder, as befits. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice spin on things but not really based in any facts at all WarKosign.First off Hamas did not congratulate the murderers because at the time they did not know the kids had been murdered because the news was they had been kidnapped.Who said Gazans kidnapped them? Also Hamas are not the authorities in the west bank, it is under Israeli military occupation so they cannot arrest people there obviously. The UK government are not responsible for everything that happens in the UK, they are only responsible for inforcing the laws and they do not catch that many criminals at all, so to claim that Hamas is responsible for everything that happens in the west bank is untrue.They certainly are not responsible for other groups firing rockets, those groups are independent of Hamas and no one has proven otherwise.GGranddad (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: A government is responsible for everything that happens on their soil. Obviously they can't prevent every crime or accident, but they are responsible to make a reasonable effort to prevent, and if that fails - to fix the damages and punish the perpetrators. If hamas as it claims is an acting government in the Gaza strip, it can't claim that it's not responsible for other groups firing rockets. Either they are a government, or a guerrilla organization. If they are not a government and there is no other, Israel's is the only government responsible for the Gaza strip, and it's well within its right - as well as obligation - to hunt down Hamas terrorists. WarKosign (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but both of you are wasting time debating responsibility. Basic neutral solution, write "Israel considers Hamas responsible". Doesn't matter which Arab liberation militia does what as long as long as it is clearly a racial based terrorist act, Israel can blame either Hamas or Fatah based on whatever information the Shin Beit has (or whatever the Prime Minister feels like). It is not Wikipedia's place to start making disclaimers (unless, there's a really good one that I'm missing? Did a UK resident did the killing or something silly like that?). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Al-Aqsa

@WarKosign: Your edit here is not to the point. Whether the US govt. defines Al-Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is beside the point of whether targeting them is legal or not. Kingsindian (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Why not ? Argument: Israel attacked journalists, which is an alleged violation of IHL. Counter argument: some international bodies, including the US government consider them terrorists, which makes them a legitimate target. WarKosign (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing alleged about it, if you attack journalists then you are breaking the law. I believe Israel killed about 9 journalists in Gaza this time around.Can you show us a link from some international bodies that states that journalists are terrorists? Thanks. GGranddad (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No one, other than ISIS, attacked journalists. A TV station is not a journalist and journalists do get killed in war zones even without being a direct target. To the point -- if ISIS TV station is attacked, certainly, it merits to add that it is considered a terrorist body regardless if ISIS "journalists" are killed in the process. (read: replace ISIS with Hamas -- there's not a huge difference anyway [11]) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS? Please try and keep to the topic, this is about Gaza and journalists there. HRW and Amnesty have both accused Israel of attacking journalists and media outlets in Gaza illegally.GGranddad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Sure it is alleged. You are alleging it now. Wishing or believing it very strongly doesn't make it absolute truth. Do you have on you undeniable proof that the event happened, that they were indeed journalists and not terrorists in disguise, that they were killed by IDF and that it happened intentionally ? We are not here to decide whether the allegation are correct or not. We are only to report them. We do have proof that such a claim was made, hence this section. WarKosign (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not alleged that it is against the law to attack journalists, it is against the law.You stated that attacking journalists was allegedly against the law, you are wrong, it is against the law.GGranddad (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This from HRW. “Just because Israel says a journalist was a fighter or a TV station was a command center does not make it so,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Journalists who praise Hamas and TV stations that applaud attacks on Israel may be propagandists, but that does not make them legitimate targets under the laws of war.”GGranddad (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To the point of this section (legal debates are a waste of time) -- a gazillibillion NGOs and their failed electornic-intifada contributors (see section about Ms Awad), are not more important than the tiny insignificant government called USA. If they say something about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or about the Hamas run PR department called Al-Aqsa TV) it belongs in the article's body. Yes. It does. In fact, it should probably be placed before NGO allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Your added statement makes no reference to the legality of targeting them. It simply says that the US govt. does not distinguish between Hamas and al-Aqsa television station as terrorist. The relevant policy is quoted by GGranddad, however, that comes from 2012, so it cannot be directly included here. I am still waiting for HRW etc. to write a comprehensive report, but for the moment, I have included Reporters without Borders statement and Al-Haq statement affirming the illegality of targeting journalists even if they are propagandists or belong to a so-called terrorist organization. To MarciulionisHOF, I have ignored you till now, and will continue to ignore you. Please read WP:FORUM. Kingsindian (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have stated it was from 2012 but it obviously points out HRW opinion on the law relating to events and the same events happened in 2014 Gaza war.We need to wait for the NGO reports from this conflict of course.GGranddad (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:. Sources "affirming" and "plastering" and all that jazz are indeed foruming. US gov perspective is not foruming, though. I hope these points are clear enough so that no one will ignore them. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Once it established (that some people believe) that Al-Aqsa TV journalists are member of Hamas, attacking them is as (il)legal as attacking any (other) hamas member. This source mentions that IDF believe this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/20/israelgaza-unlawful-israeli-attacks-palestinian-media. I will add it, does it satisfy you ? WarKosign (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You cannot add it, it is from 2012 war not this one and so is your link.GGranddad (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Indeed as GGranddad mentions, the report is from 2012. In any case, the Israeli statement about why they targeted the TV stations is already present. There does not need to be anything else. And, as I said, the US position on whether they consider Al Aqsa TV station as terrorist or not is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is that a leading global power (read: the USA, not a silly NGO) and Israel, stating a long term perspective on the Hamas PR department (Flying Mosque TV) is most relevant to avoid any instances of plastering affirmation. Adding long-standing, mainstream views is the encyclopedic thing to do. Removing them based on disliking the mainstream views (a gazzillibillion NGOs and their fantastical names put aside) is bad jazz. I do agree, that outside long term perspective of the global powers, sources should show as much relation to the recent dance-fight rather than articles from 2012. However, if an Israeli or US official has a statement, it should be noted (with the relevant time-stamp). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In between the vast amount of WP:FORUMing one can detect some small argument by MarciulionisHOF. However, it is without basis. The statement by the US Treasury (in 2010) about Hamas ties, says nothing at all about whether it is legal to target Al Aqsa TV station. To put it in this section is wholly WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't wish to plaster its articles with worthless/meaningless NGO flamings without some real world notable perspective next to them. Common sense basis, is to include the US view on the Flying Mosque TV station. The initial edit pasted on this topic[12] seemed quite normative to me and objections have been on technicalities, rather than substance. Should there be found a specific source? Where the US talks specifically about a journalist or two that got hurt during an attack in the vicinity of Hamas PR department? Just to counter every NGO out there? That is absurd. The US repeatedly talk about how Israel has the right to defend itself and only counter instances where the case in unclear. In the case of the Flying Mosque TV -- the case IS clear and we have a source to boot. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: "Hamas' station plays a "central role in managing the media battle against the Israeli lies," the Bloc said."[13] --- Journalists, yes? If anything is undue is Reporters Without Borders (a useless organization when dealing with law-less militants like ISIS and Hamas) using something from 1999 to make bogus allegations against a portion of the IDF's statement (ignoring the part about Flying Mosque TV being used to parlay orders to operatives seems relevant). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) : retouch MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It has to be made clear, per WP:NPOV, when Al Aqsa TV and its operatives are mentioned, that for huge part of the world, Hamas political wing, including organizations run by this wing, (to which Al Aqsa TV belongs) are considered a terrorist infrastructure. We should not take stand on this issue, but we are an explicit claim that the US does not distinguish between "armed terrorists" and Al Aqsa TV operatives does not mean that the US thinks that Al Aqsa TV is legitimate target. Well, this is not correct as the US means exactly that,. as "terrorist targets" are considered legitimate targets by international law. More so, other states which declared Hamas political wing, and all of its institutions as a "terrorist organization" and this includes 40+ countries, legally do not consider Al Aqsa TV as legitimate media, nor they consider its operatives as journalists.--Tritomex (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I need to see some sources directly justifying the targeting of Al Aqsa journalists, not handwaving. All I see right now, is a US Treasury statement saying that Al Aqsa TV and Hamas are intimately tied and thus both are terrorist. Fine, but nobody is denying that. Just being a member of Hamas does not make targeting them legal. Hamas' politicians are not considered militants, for example. (This is why the Washington Post passage added by Tritomex is also irrelevant). Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, There's a mistake in your argument. An operational affiliation with Hamas means you are a legal target. There is not a single reputable source saying that killing Hamas operatives is illegal. As for Flying Mosque TV, Israel made a statement (e.g. used to parlay Hamas orders). The US will, obviously, not address each and every case and, certainly, won't use big words like 'illegal'. They have made a general statement that the Hamas PR department, in charge of "managing the media battle against the Israeli lies", is a terrorist body (which lies under legality definitions even if unmentioned directly). Israel and US views about the Flying Mosque TV are not hand-waving even if the word 'legal' was not dropped in. Hamas' "politicians" ARE considered legal targets by both Israel and the US due to their association with what both consider a terrorist organization. Certainly, countries have a bigger say (or at least, similar article space) than a gazzillibillion NGOs vying for extra prominence through sensationalism and wanton allegations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: The 2010 treasury article is a primary source talking about ties. And it makes no determination for the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV. There needs to be a reliable secondary source reporting on the Treasury report, and connecting it to targeting of TV station during a war. Without that, it is WP:OR. I have added tags. Kingsindian (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I can understand your concern but disagree with an original research tag (which part of that policy fits here?). The article does not include original arguments, not listed in the references. Certainly, mainstream views on the legal status of the battle station is pertinent to any NGO silliness. While we don't have another source and we remain in disagreement, it might be interesting to hear views on this from more editors on the best way to present the varying perspectives on the legal status of the battle station (i.e. based on mainstream views). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: From WP:OR. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Kingsindian (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, but no one will say "it IS legal to attack XXX". We certainly have (a) reliable source. (b) no new conclusion is implied -- just the basic, mainstream one. (c) directly related to the legal status of the battle station. I hope, even if you disagree, that you can at least see my point. Since I'm not certain you are convinced or that you understand where your demand for a source responding directly to an absurd NGO (usually, even more absurd NGOs do that -- e.g. CAMERA, Honestreporting.com, etc.) is hurting a very normative presentation of the mainstream views. 'JWB say X, the US and Israel see it differently'. I urge you to reconsider. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, with MarciulionisHOF, no one details the legality of this particular military action, but the designation of Al Aqsa TV as a legitimate media, and its operatives as journalists which is a hotly disputed and polemic issue. Per WP:NPOV, we should not take a stand on this issue, but present all relevant views. This has nothing to do with OR and directly supports the material being presented .Tritomex (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF and Tritomex: I have no idea what you mean by "no one will say it is legal to attack XXX". Of course many orgs specifically render opinions on when it is legal to target and when it is not. Under certain circumstances, it is ok to target press installations. The circumstances have already been mentioned in Israel's justification, namely, if they are transmitting military codes or something. It is fine to mention that. And the press-related and human rights organizations have condemned it on the basis that they have determined (they don't take Israel's claim to have any basis in fact). I have no issue with including anything which is relevant. This Treasury stuff is not relevant. Kingsindian (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, The US treasury is an extension of congress. This source can be added: [14] -- basically speaking, the US is a spec more notable than silly NGOs (Can we at least agree on that?). If they have a legal position on something, it is relevant. I hope, the added source helps validate that this is not coming from some pencil pusher in the treasury, but is an official view of the US gov. Btw, current phrasing is problematic. e.g "Journalists are considered civilians and should not be targeted under international humanitarian law." (no attribution given). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have no idea how that new source (Arutz Sheva) is important. The notability of the US Treasury report has already been established by secondary sources added by Tritomex. I am not disputing that. I am questioning the relevance. So far, no relevance has been established. I need direct relevance, a source directly addressing the legality of targeting Al Aqsa TV, as the Reporters Without Borders and Al Haq source do. Kingsindian (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, I've been saying the past few replies that your request is unreasonable because no one says "its legal to ...". NGOs likes to use big words like 'illegal', and states like to use general terms like 'terrorist', which imply legality. The only ones who attack NGO silliness are even sillier NGOs like CAMERA. On occasion, you get an expert who says 'Israel has the right to defend itself', but it is simply unreasonable to expect a one to one ratio between the words 'illegal' and 'legal'. Do we have any other examples where these 'illegal' allegations were met with the word "legal" instead of a more complex term such as "terrorist"?

The classic blood libel - Monica Awad for Al-Jazeera

Monica Awad is mentioned for the classic 'Jews intentionally kill children' blood libel on the civilian casualties section. I am wondering what makes her stand out of all the others who interviewed on Al-Jazeera, saying pretty much the same (lord knows, there's plenty of antisemites to go around). On point, Al-Jazeera should be mentioned as a hub for these types of disgusting plastering of antisemitic "opinions". Sources which are generic (ynet) and do not mention the age-old allegation should be removed from the citation. And, a counter view should be noted as well. e.g. Ami Ayalon here [15]. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We have to add all relevant reliable views, per WP NPOV, even if we do not agree with them. This goes for Awad as well.--Tritomex (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

While not reliable, her position makes her more notable than an anecdotal nobody. Still, many others went on al-Jazeera and PressTV to read their antisemitic paslms about Jews' "slaughter of children" -- e.g. Osama Hamdan here: [16]. Hamas' spokesperson should be mentioned alongside her. Also, the opposing (read: the truth based) view (Ami Ayalon and others), should be given a place as well. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think, Osama Hamdan as a highly positioned Hamas officer claim should be mentioned, but not alongside Awad, and not in that section. The Israeli reply to Awad can be mentioned in the same section.--Tritomex (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As easy as it may be to see someone's comment that 'Jews intentionally kill children' as being anti-semitic or blood libel it should only go in the section on the rise of anti-semitism if someone else mentions it as being an example of anti-semitism. In fact, the current section seems to lack any mention of Press TV or Al Jazeera being anti-semitic media so those POV are welcome if they can be properly cited.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Awad is not notable enough to merit mention as using anti-semitic style slander. Hamdan, though, got his ass served to him on CNN -- and responded with an array of lies and obfuscations. Here's a source: [17] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for update

Many important events had happened, can someone update? --84.108.204.8 (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The introduction does not summarize the contexts of the article

The introduction does not summarize more than half of the article, while the impact on Gaza civilians was given unproportionally huge section of the lead, practically copying the test already written beneath.Tritomex (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC) The article has 8 sections, so the introduction should consist of 2 to 3 sentences from each section as a summary.--Tritomex (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. There is no reason why the two largest paragraphs are simply parroting each other and restating the same information twice (just one being figures provided from the UN and the other being figures from the Gaza government Ministries. both neutral sources, of course...). I would suggest re-writting this without any statistics other than very broad things like "thousands of Palestinians have been killed or wounded and dozens of Israelis have been killed in the conflict. As a result of the conflict hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced." This covers the topic without removing anything except the many figures (which need to be changed by the hour) and also the amazing publicity and advertising it provides for the ongoing UN Gaza fund raising campaign. So be bold but remember W:NPOV and try not to remove valid references whenever possible.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat agree, that there is lot of duplication in the last 2 paragraphs, though it would be too bold to rewrite the lead directly. See WP:STATUSQUO. I will put up a draft of the lead here (or someone else can do it), and people can make changes on it. With a rough draft which seems a bit better than the current one, we can put it up. Kingsindian (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft of the lead

Operation Protective Edge (Template:Lang-he-n, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, which escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip on 6 July.

By August 5, Israel's combined ground, air and naval forces had struck 4,762 targets in Gaza, while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired over 3000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires (including one on 5 August, during which all Israeli soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) fell apart or expired, before an Egyptian proposal for a 72-hour ceasefire was accepted by Israeli and Palestinian officials on 10 August.

On 10 August, another Egyptian proposal for a 72-hour ceasefire was negotiated and agreed upon Israeli and Palestinian officials, and on 13 August it was extended for another 120 hours to allow both sides to continue negotiations for a long-term solution to end the month-long fighting. On 19 August, a 24 hour ceasefire extension renewal was violated when 29 Hamas rockets were fired into Israel, and the Israeli Air Force carried out airstrikes in response, killing 9 Gazans. Peace talks subsequently fell apart.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada, though both the exact number of deaths and the percentage of the dead who were militants as opposed to civilians have been in dispute. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, 2,104 Gazans have been killed and 10,500 have been wounded, of which 80% were civilians. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1,444 (72%) of 2,042 deaths they documented were civilians, of whom 724 (35% of all deaths) were women or children. According to the Israeli government, 40%-50% of Gazan fatalities have been combatants. 64 IDF soldiers have been killed, as well as two Israeli civilians. The Israel Defense Forces have stated that Hamas has used civilians as "human shields"; Hamas has stated that it does not use human shields.

As of 5 August 2014 an OCHA report stated that in the Gaza Strip, 520,000 Palestinians (approximately 30% of Gaza's population) may have been displaced, of whom 273,000 were taking shelter in 90 UN-run schools. UNRWA has exhausted its capacity to absorb displaced persons, and overcrowding in shelters risks the outbreak of epidemics. On at least six occasions Israeli artillery shells have hit UNRWA schools that were serving as shelters. 1.5 million people in Gaza have limited or no access to water supplies. 26 health facilities have been damaged, 17,200 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered major or minor damaged but are still inhabitable. More than 485,000 internally displaced persons are in need of emergency food assistance. In Israel, an estimated 5,000 – 8,000 citizens of Southern Israel have fled their homes due to the threat of rocket and mortar attacks.

References

The problem with this proposal is that its not very much different than the current introduction. The Impact on civilian population of Gaza can not take 40% of introduction, when we have 7 other sections which all need to be mentioned equally. My proposal was to give 2-3 sentences about each section. I will try to make a proposal as soon as I will have enough time.Tritomex (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: That counts as a "Duh!":) It is "not very much different" because...it is in fact identical. I just copy pasted it from there to serve as a starting point. Kingsindian (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead paragraph suggestion

I hope most editors can agree that the lead is a hot mess. I propose we start on writing/agreeing on a basic lead paragraph. A short introduction with no background which explains the topic of the article. In that regard, I made an attempt which is wholly based on the current version of the lead paragraph of Operation Defensive Shield. Give me your thoughts so I know if it can be inserted......

Operation Protective Edge (Template:Lang-he-n, Tzuk Eitan, lit. "Strong Cliff"), is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the stated aim of ending rocket fire from the Gaza strip into Israel, It was later expanded to include the destruction of tunnels used by militants for cross-border attacks.

Reworked to include BBC and tunnels. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Comments

Each event in this area has the problem that each side will find a previous infraction for which the action is a "reaction". Basic fairness at least requires one hop for each and no more -- the rest can be in the background section. I suggest: "expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, which escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip." For establishing the starting point, consult the section Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Rockets_pre_July_6_and_post_July_6 Kingsindian (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

But if we do that, we have to say why Israel killed those 6 martyrdom seekers in the first place. My suggestion explains the Israeli claims for a wide-scale "operation". Would it be better if we remove Israel's stated reasoning for recruiting 40,000 reserves as well in the name of avoiding back-and forths that go on to the days of Muhammad slaughtering and beheading the Jews of Yathrib ... because they made fun of him? On point, a few extra rockets are not much of an escalation. The killing of 6 or 3 or 1 whatever on whoever's side are not lead paragraph material, but background material. OK. Assuming you disagree. Let's try to be be encyclopedia -- what do mainstream sources say? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I just added a source (BBC), which in my understanding, uses the same phrasing as I suggested. It does not have mention of any 6 militants - because doing that is C-R-hey-ZEE... kidding. Hope that BBC can be accepted. I remind: my structure is based on the existing structure of Operation Cast Lead, which I'm sure survived many eyes - so it makes good sense to consider it as a good long term structure. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: No, we don't have to do anything. I already said, one hop from each (and no more) is basic fairness and NPOV. If you mention rocket attacks and tunnels, and don't mention the airstrikes, it is not acceptable. Kingsindian (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So the BBC is unfair? Wikipedia should add a non-notable to the 1st sentence? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether BBC is unfair or not is irrelevant. BBC is not Wikipedia. There is no reason to hew to its phrasing. Kingsindian (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF:: @Kingsindian:

So let us try to combine all views for introduction: " Operation Protective Edge (Hebrew: צוּק אֵיתָן, Tzuk Eitan, il "Solid Rock"),is an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, officially launched on 8 July 2014 with the expressed goal of stopping rocket launching from the Gaza strip into Israel, Although rocket attacks by different militant groups from Gaza occurred during entire year, it escalated after an Israeli airstrike killed 6 Hamas militants in the Gaza strip on 6 July.

Note I checked the numbers of rocket atacks: Januar 22, Februar 9, march 65, april 24, may 7, June 62, July 1-9, July 2 -18, july 3-13, july 4 25, july 5-17.Tritomex (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: The story with the rockets is much more complex than that. See the background section for details. Rockets continued at a very low level all the way after 2012 ceasefire. There was a small escalation after the crackdown in the West Bank, when non-Hamas factions started rocket fire, and a major escalation after the airstrike on July 6, when Hamas itself started. Virtually all analysts single out the July 6 date as important; there was a major barrage. I have already written a separate section giving all references. Kingsindian (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing complex about rockets launched at your 4 year old girl - you pick her up in her sleep and take her to the hallway because you don't have a shelter and the hallway is relatively speaking the safest place in your house. If doesn't matter if its one rocket or more as long as there are rockets. On point -- please provide a few examples of these analysis sources that think 6 unknown Arab Liberation Militants in Gaza are super-important. The BBC's article (here again:[18]) about the ending of fighting does not mention this. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

France 24, doesn't care about 6 nobody's either - [19] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal (2)

The long term conflict between Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and Israel escalated on july 8. Israel launched (Hebrew: מִבְצַע צוּק אֵיתָן, Mivtza' Tzuk Eitan, ("Operation Protective edge"), to stop rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip which Gaza based militant factions had undertaken allegedly in response to an Israeli crackdown on Hamas members and institutions on the West Bank, which Israel claimed to carried out as a response to the kidnapping of 3 Israeli teenagers, by Hamas militants. Hamas leadership, claimed responsibility for the actions and praised the act, although denied prior knowledge and authorization of it, a position rejected by Israel

Israel's combined ground, air and naval forces had struck 4,762 targets in Gaza, while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired over 3000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel. Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires (including one on 5 August, during which all Israeli soldiers were withdrawn from the Gaza Strip) fell apart or expired.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada, though both the exact number of deaths and the percentage of the dead who are civilians has been disputed. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 1,454 (72%) of 2,076 deaths they documented were civilians. According to the Israeli government, 40%-50% of Gazan fatalities (900-1000) have been combatants. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, affiliated to Hamas, 2,134 Gazans have been killed and 10,915 have been wounded, of which 80% were civilians. 64 IDF soldiers have been killed. Three Israeli civilians and a Thai worker were also killed. Al least 25 Gaza civilians, accused of collaboration with Israel were killed in Hamas summarily executions. Israel claimed that Hamas has used civilian infrastructure such as homes, hospitals, schools, UN facilities and mosques for attacks, and civilians as "human shields" a claim that Hamas denied.

In Gaza 17,200 homes have been totally destroyed or severely damaged, and 37,650 homes have suffered major or minor damaged but are still inhabitable. More than 485,000 internally displaced persons were in need of emergency food assistance. In Israel the combined direct and indirect demage stood between $1.2 billion to $2.3 billion. as of august 11.

@Kingsindian: @Monopoly31121993:

Here is my provisional proposal for the lead.Tritomex (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: There are too many drafts now (three). Regarding the first paragraph, I have stated my opinions in the "comments" section above. Each event can be seen as a reaction to a previous event. I proposed that there should be exactly one hop from each and no more. The phrasing I prefer is given above. Kingsindian (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft proposal (3)

The conflict between Hamas controlled Gaza Strip and Israel escalated on July 8 when Israel launched "Operation Protective Edge".
Operation Pillar of Defence and alleged violations of its ceasefire by both sides since led to the conflict.

Israel struck thousands of targets in Gaza while Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups had fired thousands of missiles into Israel.Several attempts to arrange a cease-fire between the two sides failed, and several arranged cease-fires fell apart or expired.

The conflict is the deadliest military operation to have taken place in Gaza since the Second Intifada.

There was severe damage to homes and infrastructures in Gaza, as well as impact on Israel.

A number of legal issues concerning the conflict have arisen during course of the fighting.

I propose this much shorter version - a single sentence summarizing and linking to every major section. The selection of the major sections and the wording of the sentences is not final, it's just a suggestion for a way to guarantee a much shorter lead - don't duplicate information from the article itself, announce its existence and link to it. WarKosign (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Although unconventional proposal, for the reasons stated as well as because I am afraid that any detailed wording will not lead to consensus, I can accept your proposed draft as a compromise solution. --Tritomex (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but I don't know of any articles constructed like this. What about a similar construct, only without the in-article links? Any thoughts on my suggestion for first para? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with repeating stuff in the lead which is there in the body of the text. In fact, that is the correct practice, per WP:LEAD. The lead is meant to be a stand-alone summary of the whole article. Many people just read the lead, and nothing else. So this proposal is not good. Kingsindian (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the shortened version that has been posted here. The whole idea of the lead is to summarize what is in the article.GGranddad (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Egypt, Qatar and Turkey in the infobox

Someone keeps adding these countries. Military infoboxes are for combat support only (not "financial support") and it is undue to have them listed. This is also a clear misrepresentation of sources because Egypt doesn't support anyone in this conflict and the fact that it helped broker a ceasefire more than once should be taken into consideration. Most of the sources say that Egypt is "indifferent" towards the Palestinians (which I fail to see as support for Israel) because the government opposes Hamas. But so does Mahmoud Abbas and many other Arab leaders. For example, the context of this article from The Guardian is completely unrelated to the title "Egypt’s decision to side with Israel has cost Gaza dear" and doesn't prove anything about any Egyptian support for Israel. The destruction of tunnels is merely related to Egypt's current insurgency and crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood. Nothing else. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamas leaders in hospitals

@Tritomex: Re your edit. This Washington Post report has already been discussed before. It only talks about Hamas political leaders visiting hospitals, which does not make them a military target. Putting this in the hospital section is WP:OR. There is no connection made that this makes the targeting of hospitals legal. The claim that Hamas uses Al-Shifa hospital as a militant base comes from an Israeli official and it should be properly attributed. There is plenty of testimony to the contrary, if such a statement is to be included. You can't just include every claim like this. Kingsindian (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I gave precise quote from Washington Post under quotation marks. The Washington Post explicitly says that the "Shifa has become a de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." So this is is exact quotation and not anything even close to original reaserch.--Tritomex (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: I did not fault the edit based on whether you quoted the Post accurately. I asked what relevance does it have to the section on attacks on hospitals. Unless you can find a reliable source to document the connection, it is WP:OR, in my opinion. Or call it WP:UNDUE or whatever. Just that there is no connection at all to the section. (added) Kingsindian (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Well your claim that "it only talks only about political leaders" needs some source. If you have a source that this refer only to "visiting Hamas leaders", which is totally contradictory to what the Washington Post says, I will remove this quote. Second using hospitals as "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is violation of international law, weather they are military or political leaders in question. Third I properly attributed the claim to Washington Post, which means I did not presented it as an established fact.--Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I checked it again, I placed this quote in the section detialing aleged violations of international law in Medical facilities. Having headquarter in hospital is considered a serious violation of international law, concerning political or military leaders.--Tritomex (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Excuse me, the Washington Post article itself only names Hamas politicians vising the hospitals. "The minister was turned away before he reached the hospital, which has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices." It does not state anywhere that Hamas militants have been inside the hospital. I do not need to provide a source, it is your own source which says this. Secondly, the claim that using hospitals is "de facto headquarter for Hamas leaders" is a violation of international law needs to be established by a WP:RS, not asserted by Wikipedia editors. Third, there is no third, since I did not raise the point at all. Kingsindian (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Thanks for the revert while we discuss. Unfortunately the statement left is problematic as well. The article quotes a French newspaper writer who claims to have seen combatants interrogating journalists, though the article was removed afterwards at the request of the author. This kind of evidence is not to be given too much weight. If it is presented, the contrary view, that these allegations are not substantiated should also be presented, and the statement of the director of the hospital quoted. Here are two sources: this and this. Kingsindian (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The report on Hamas interrogation in Shifa, was covered by plenty of sources, all over world, so it has enough weight. If Hamas, or the hospital management responded to this particular incident, I agree that this should be included too.--Tritomex (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this image factual?

The image File:Map-of-rockets-launches-from-gaza-from-2014-07-08-to-2014-07-31.jpg is being used with the caption "Map showing rocket launch sites in Gaza". That's inaccurate. As it currently stands, the image is of an IDF propaganda poster that contains what the IDF claims is a map of rocket launches from Gaza. So really the picture would belong in the 2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Media_coverage or some place like that. The picture contains the statement "Hamas fires rockets from everywhere in Gaza", which is incredibly POV.VR _talk 06:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have another source providing a map ? Do you have a source saying that this map is incorrect ? You can't ask to remove the facts just because you don't like them. Why aren't you claiming that the map of damaged houses in Gaza is propaganda and POV ? WarKosign (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The map of damage in Gaza is from the UN, the map of rocket attacks comes from one side in the conflict,Israel obviously. I think the caption on it should read claimed rocket sites map from the IDF or something like that.Also, just because Israel releases a map does not make the content of it a fact.GGranddad (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of ten images showing the israeli POV, atleast six are taken from IDF blog. The rocket range map was created by original research, while the source of the shelter sign is unknown. Picture of siderot factory is own work and Helsinki protests is from a news source.

As per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, the blog images do not qualify.

Out of the ten images showing the Palestinian POV, three are from btselem, three are own works, one is a video grab {from moigovps), two are own works based on UN satellite info, one is from flickr. --Stannic tetramuon ・Snμ₄ 15:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I took the photo of the shelter sign when I was at the airport last week. It is the first time I uploaded an image, is there something wrong with it ? WarKosign (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I replaced the rocket map launch with a cropped version that does not have the "Hamas fires from everywhere" statement. The statement is an exaggeration, otherwise whole map would be red. As for the map coming from a single side, a) Is there a map of launch sites published by Hamas or the UN ? b) the caption clearly says that this is an IDF-released map. WarKosign (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

barnstar for the editor who managed the most devious link on this hopeless article

I've taken it out - mot of the article should be taken out, or hit with an IAF missile, thanks to the sedulous POV pushing, - but this takes the cake [Perfidy|some Hamas operatives dressed in plainclothes] and the night vision goggles made everything look green. Could all editors respect the talk page and not permit shit like this, or dubious IDF posed photos, to sneak in?Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just do your best. After all, getting a NPOV is never perfectly possible so if you're trying to get there then you're way ahead of half the people who have edited/created this page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

IAF missiles are expensive, are you prepared to pay for one ? Qasam rockets are far cheaper. Not sure which article you will hit, though.
The quote by the soldier about the goggles was undue weight, imo. Now it appears there are quotes from two different soldiers, while in the source it's same Avi in both. As for the link - militants dressing up as civilians IS perfidy by definition, and the whole quote actually belongs to the human shields section. WarKosign (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign, is that an admission that you made that link, dribbling in a moral judgement to a narrative that must be NPOV? You are obliged not to edit in the interests of a government here, I would remind you. If you think soldiers/militants dressing in civvies is perfidious, I expect in terms of coherence that you will now go and edit all of the articles dealing with the assassination of Palestinians on the West bank by Sayeret Matkal and Yamas, like for example, Abdullah Qawasmeh, the uncle of one of the two thugs who killed the three Israeli teenagers this year, who was gunned down in Hebron, unarmed, by 13 Israeli undercover agents dressed in Palestinian clothes in 2003? What is a standard assassination tactic in the IDF is a perfidious use of human shields in Hamas? You've got a lot of work on your perfidy pushing: there are hundreds of such cases. 'Witnesses said a dozen Israeli troops disguised as Palestinian labourers waited in a van with windows blocked by boxes of diapers and two other vehicles bearing local licence plates, as worshippers left the mosque after Saturday evening prayers. According to local resident Bassam Hassan, Mr. Qawasme “was hit in the leg, ran to the other side of the street, and the Israelis finished him off.” (AFP, DPA, Reuters).' Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: In editing in such a sensitive area, you should never substitute your own judgement. "Perfidy" is a legal term - you are a WP editor. Find a source which says this particular act is perfidy, and add it if you wish. This is the minimum. Of course, as Nishidani says, one can find plenty of perfidy on the other side, which you should consider adding, if one is to follow WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV. Kingsindian (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Meshaal's denial

As a general point, I would be careful about Wikipedia uncritically accepting and putting undue weight on Meshaal's denial that Hamas political leadership were aware of the kidnapping, as if this proves the organization's innocence. Meshaal is an exiled political spokesman, mainly for Western audiences, and the degree to which he controls Hamas military operations is highly dubious. For example:

[Meshaal] disclaimed any direct responsibility for the Hamas suicide bombings that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians during the 1990s and 2000s. "I'm a political leader, and I do not interfere in military affairs," he said. "What the Palestinian people do in resisting occupation are details that I do not get myself involved in."

He took a similar position when pressed about the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, a stance that raises questions about just how much control the group's political leaders have over its military wing. He acknowledged that in the past, Hamas got its rockets and weapons from "different sources" — an apparent reference to aid that the group's military wing has gotten from Iran. "Now it's becoming very difficult to move these rockets through, and we manufacture most of them, if not all of them, in Gaza," he said. "We depend on ourselves in making our weaponry."

Meshaal was asked how many rockets Hamas has. "I don't know," he said, smiling. "I'm the head of the political bureau...I direct the policies and the positions. But not the details when it comes to military issues."

Meshaal did acknowledge that Hamas members were behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers hitchhiking on the West Bank in June but said Hamas political leaders did not know about the operation "in advance." Still, he justified the killings as a legitimate action against Israelis on "occupied" lands. "Our view is that soldiers and settlers in the West Bank are aggressors, and they are illegally living in these occupied and stolen lands," he said. "And the right to resist them is the right of Palestinians."

Just a concern of mine.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The person who took credit for the kidnapping is also a person in exile in Turkey, isn't he? See here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if I was him I would not be claiming I was responsible for any attacks at all being as he has just signed up for the Palestinians going to the ICC.Have you ever thought he was not really being honest in that interview for personal safety issues, like not doing 30 years in prison for war crimes?I think the piece about him in the article is fine, it is sourced from main stream media and meets wikipedia standards.Why do you not believe him when he says he did not know about the kidnapping but believe him in the article you posted? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me..GGranddad (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian, yes, as Wikipedia emphasizes, without using similar language in reference to Meshaal. @GGranddad, I don't know what you're getting at.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source on the power struggles within Hamas.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't second guess sources. A large amount of fabrication, falsification, cover-ups and dubious formal statements characterizes both sides, and much of the press which recycles official handouts. Many Israeli journalists have stated that the way their press, radio etc has fallen in lockstep with government propaganda is disgraceful, and of course we have a huge section ignoring this, but focusing on what those handouts insinuate, and Hamas threats to journalists. I can't be bothered doing such a section, but trying to say Hamas is exceptional in not admitting what an interested party its adversary insinuates, is a bit silly, esp. given the fact that all great powers lie through their teeth, as historians are required to tediously note in books no one reads.Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo of soldiers + child in the timeline section

That photo has been criticized as dubious many times. Here is a better one. Please, someone replace it with this. Kingsindian (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashkelon residents run for shelter during a bomb alert.

I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it? WarKosign (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Here are some criticisms. Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_2#WP:CLAIM. Apart from the dubious way in which the photo has been taken, it is best to simply avoid photos from either side. The photo I have given is not contested by anyone and shows the same issue: rocket attacks on Israel. Kingsindian (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I see that the criticism is that we have no way of knowing it wasn't staged or faked. Same criticism can be applied to every single photo. How do we know that the people in the picture you are suggesting aren't actors in a studio ?

Most of the pictures taken during fighting will either be taking by people representing a side and released as PR and thus subject to based claims of POV or by journalists and therefore copyrighted. WarKosign (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the picture in question of the Israeli soldiers shielding a kid is staged and most pictures taken in conflict come from photo journalists who put their name to them.Is there any name attacked to that picture? I see nothing wrong with replacing it with the other picture or another one.GGranddad (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It was reproduced in defiance of an earlier discussion which cast serious doubts on its authenticity. When in doubt, esp. with the propaganda war also being waged, one is obliged to not touch questionable 'stuff' with a 10-foot pole. I think requests were made for detailed information on who took it, where, and at what time. No one replied. No one replied to the criticisms of what looks to any practiced eye like a staged event. These considerations alone mean no one should put it back unless they can satisfy the suspicions over it.Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked the photo up. It is credited to Li Aviv Dadon, who is apparently the kid's mother. http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/in-israel/local/soldiers-protecting-a-child-6527 Not an IDF photo, and no evidence of it being staged - no more than any other photo. WarKosign (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Is there some special reason you want to use this particular photo? The photo is from IDF's Flickr account. As I said already, the photo is demonstrating rocket attacks on Israel. The photo on the right is by Reuters and freely available, demonstrating the same thing. Why not use that? As to staging, there are many questions about the photo. Virtually every photo you will see, will have people lying flat on the ground to avoid rocket fire. The kind of behaviour shown in the photo is very unusual. It is best to simply remove the IDF photo and use the Reuters photo which is better in every way. Kingsindian (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was just wondering why these Israeli soldiers were protecting this kid supposedly from rocket fire while his mother stood there taking a picture, was she not worried about rockets? Sounds staged to me frankly.GGranddad (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Um. Well, could be true, but that is a very strange account, apart from the oddness of the postures and the lighting. The mother says the 'door' jammed, in a car in which she, her husband and her 4 and a half year old child were travelling. The husband and wife couldn't get out of the car with the 'jammed door', but a door near the child could be opened. That means he was in the back seat. But why is it that both husband and wife had trouble with a 'jammed door', when there are two doors, one for either side of the front seats? Very very strange, as strange as the handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee and the curious lighting. Know how long it would take a young dad to dive into the back seat and grab his son as he got out of the car in a situation of threat? About3 seconds. No, the two parents struggled with 'one' of the two doors in the front as their kid managed to open by himself the back door, get out and toddle away. Sure. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What is also strange is that she says she was panicked, sirens going off,jammed doors, rockets coming in,people running for the shelter but she stops to take a picture. GGranddad (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I personally like this picture. There are countless other pictures of people flying on the floor between their cars or taking shelter in staircases inside buildings, but this shows the human element. If there is still a consensus against this picture with valid reference - sure, let's replace it with any of the boring ones.

@GGranddad and Nishidani: No mention of running to a shelter anywhere. "Jammed" probably means "didn't open on the first try". The instructions for alarm while driving is to stop the car, exit it and lay on the floor. Depending on their location, they had between 15 seconds and 2 minutes. She probably panicked about her kid running off by himself, so once she saw him safe she could take the picture. Objectively, lying down doesn't reduce the danger by much. Whenever the alarm caught me in the middle of the road I stopped the car, exited it but remained standing up and looked for a smoke trail in the sky. If I'd seen something as interesting I would've surely try to take a picture. This is probably where most of the published pictures of Iron Dome interceptions (smoke trail ending with a little cloud) came from. WarKosign (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your disingenuousness began when in reply to Kingsindian's question you wrote above:

:I did not see the criticism, only that the photo disappeared without clear reasons so I restored it. What is dubious about it?

Out of courtesy I did not note immediately that 2 weeks ago you asked me why I removed the picture, on my talk page. I duly replied with details and a reference to the fact it had been discussed. You did not reply, and it appears, just reintroduced the picture here, surreptitiously, because it did technically require that, given both the earlier discussion and my own answer, it required consensus. Bad, bad manners. The woman admits that the photo was posed, whatever the circumstances, unlike Kingsindian's alternative which is in real time.

In one version it was uploaded by the IDF in this version; it was uploaded by the mother.

If anyone can make sense of the sequence of events in this they are better readers of narrative sequence than me.

(a)It happened yesterday at 1pm, Lee Aviv Dadon – 34 year old, and her husband Barak drove with their child, 4.5 years old, when suddenly an alarm went off, the door was jammed and the parents panicked. Yair managed to get out of the car through another door, and then the couple witnessed an emotional sight, home front command officers grabbed and embraced the son to protect him. The mother took footage of the incident and uploaded the picture, which caused a lot of positive feedback.

(b)“As we entered our neighborhood in Rehovot the alarm went off.” Said Dadon. “We stopped at the side of the road, a vehicle in front of us also stopped, and 4 officers from the home front command exited the vehicle, and instead of protecting themselves they protected my son.” Her husband took the baby out of the car, and asked her wife to help Yair out of the car. “Everyone were hiding in cover, it was very stressful while I struggled with the car door, and when he ran for cover. I suddenly saw two home front command soldiers embracing him, it was simply amazing, and I asked them for permission to photo the moment.” The soldiers who do not know the family, simply acted on instinct to protect the child, and even after the alarm they spoke with the child to make sure he is relaxed and calm. “I thanked them, I was really emotional, Yair was calm”. Immediately after the event, she knew she has to do something, and uploaded the picture, “I wanted everyone to see the true face of our moral and human(e) soldiers who protect other(s) instead of themselves.”

In (b), the husband is outside the car with another baby, and asks his wife to get out of the car to look after Yair. The wife has her door stuck, and doesn't think of getting out of the other. The husband lets Yair wander off. Soldiers protect the child. The mother, with sirens screaming, thinks, 'what a lovely shot' and asks them to 'photo the moment'. I.e. the siren's blaring, her husband is somewhere with their baby, and she asks them to hold the pose. Even that is an admission that the photo is posed, and is not an incidental snap of something as it occurred (she asked permission, as the siren blared, as missiles could be striking etc.) and, obtaining it, calmly took the shot. Pull the other one. None of this makes sense, but even if it is just a confused woman, she admits the snap we have is one that was posed for once she obtained permission.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: We should not be making judgements based on "I like this" or "I like that". The photo shown is completely unrepresentative. This is not the way people protect themselves from rocket attacks. They lie flat on the ground. See the photos here and pick one you which is less unrepresentative. I will upload to commons if you like. link Kingsindian (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I noticed you removing the picture and asked you the question, but then I went on a vacation for a week. Once I returned I did not remember whom I asked and did not check your talk page, so I did not see your reply until now. My bad.
Two accounts are indeed somewhat different, but not completely contradictory. What is contradictory about "driving" and "entering their neighbourhood in Rehovot" ? Who and where says that the photo was staged ? BTW, Rehovot gives us a time frame - about a minute warning time. These reports are probably by different reporters, translated from Hebrew. Here is her own account in herbew: http://www.newz.co.il/news/%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%95-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%93%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%A0%D7%95. You can try google translate on it, but this is what I can tell she wrote "What an amazing army we have ! On (our) way home with the kids we were caught by an alarm. A car with home front officers stopped next to us and we all left the cars to take shelter. These two amazing officers caught my 4 year old son and protected him with their bodies. A picture is worth a thousand words." Here is a more detailed account of who went out first and which door was jammed: http://www.ch10.co.il/news/52459/#.U_uKr7vf44c. I don't think this is of critical importance for the authenticity of the picture. Handkerchief or paper under the soldier's right knee - this is clearly a piece of trash that happened to be there. The soldiers are wearing field uniforms that are used for crawling in dirt if need be, so nobody in his right mind would bother intentionally protecting it during a staged photo. Unless you find a smoking gun, assume good faith.
@Kingsindian: From what I've seen and did, this is more typical: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fedweb-assets/cache/fed-24/2/Operation_Protective_Edge1_resize508__1_1.jpg, and some people are laying down while others are crouching or standing or sitting. btselem's pictures are from the southern Israel, where the danger is far greater. Of course soldiers hugging and calming a child down is unusual - but so are most of the pictures on the page. "Ruins in Beit Hanoun" surely shows one of the most damaged houses and not some random house. Photo of the destroyed ambulance in Shuja'iyya is surely unusual - most of the other damaged cars are probably less damaged and are not ambulances, so why not replace them with more representative and average pictures ?
As for my personal preference not being a reason - you are correct. I like this picture and think it is notable. Each picture in the article is supposed to be truthful, relevant and noteable, and I think this one is better than the others you suggested. If my opinion is not in consensus I can live well with that. WarKosign (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Unfortunately, it is clear to me that no matter what argument I give, you will not agree. So no point in arguing further. I will just note that the picture had been removed earlier and was put back without discussion. This is not the correct way to do it. One is supposed to present arguments for adding disputed content, and failing a consensus, either start an RfC or some other method for adding it. Kingsindian (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am not sure if there is a policy based argument for "unusual pictures" as this is very subjective perception. Most of the pictures here are quiet extraordinary and have high probability of being taken exactly because of this reason.--Tritomex (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I did put it back without discussion, because I did not see the discussion that resulted in the decision to remove it. Now there is (disputed) evidence that the picture is genuine. I would like to wait a few hours to give more editors chance to offer their opinion, and as I said, if I'm in minority - I'll remove the image.
@Nishidani: Knowing the mother's full name and city of residence, I found her home address and phone number. Would you like to call her and ask what exactly happened to satisfy your curiosity ? WarKosign (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the policy based argument for removing this picture? Because I do not see any.--Tritomex (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: Policy based argument is simple. Use independent sources, like Reuters, when you can. This is not to say that the other points I raised are not important. Kingsindian (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

WarKosign. The photo we have is not of what actually happened; by the woman's own account, something of this kind happened, and she asked permission to to photograph it, and the soldiers agreed and posed for the photo. It doesn't matter that something like this might have occurred. As anyone with an eye for these things knows, the body positions are all posed. Secondly the woman's photo was uploaded to make a point about the IDF. So it restaged an act and was uploaded to make a propaganda point. Wikipedia has zero tolerance of using its mainspace to make propaganda. As Kingsindian notes there are numerous photos of people fleeing or ducking under sirens, and this is not acceptable, as was your behaviour in ignoring editorial concerns. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are hyperenthused about the photo and want it to stick, get a RfC on its inclusion. That is standard procedure.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)to th

Just by way of noting a coincidence, an identical incident occurred yesterday. Instead of a mortar or siren, a couple and their baby child from an area notorious for the most vicious settlement policies and apartheid, the South Hebron Hills, specifically from Beit Yatir(Ariel Bardi, [Between a wall and a Green Line: Palestinian life in 'Seam Zone'] +972 magazine, March 20, 2012) had their car hit in a rock assault. Succour came from other Palestinians who happened to be passing by, who picked up the child and held him while the others extricated the family. No photo op of course: Palestinians do not belong to an army noted for its purity of arms. (Akiva Novick, Palestinians rescue settlers after West Bank attack Ynet 25 August 2014)

@Nishidani: As I already wrote, I agree that I should not have restored the picture when there was consensus on removing it. I expected to see a notice when I got a reply, did not remember whom I asked so I did not check your talk page. Indeed bad manners on my side and I apologize. However, the consensus was based on the assumption that this is a staged IDF photo. We already established that this photo is not by IDF. You are insisting that the author admits staging it. Can you please refer to the quote ? Everything I've read so far says that it was on the spur of a moment. Your analysis of body language or who left the car through which door is pure original research.

The news item - nice, too bad (but understandable) that there is no picture, and of course not relevant to the current article. Maybe you can add it to the general Israel-Palestinian conflict. It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing. I wonder what was there first, attempts to murder drivers by throwing boulders on moving cards, or separate "apartheid" road network. WarKosign (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nice to see that some Palestinians don't let their hatred strong (and sometimes justified) dislike of Israelis prevent them from doing the decent thing

(Not relevant to article but that's an disreputable piece of comment, implying there are 'most Palestinians who do' and 'some who' don't, let a putative universal hatred of Israelis, influence them. People who hate, hurt. People who don't hate, settlers included, do the right thing, and that has nothing to do with ethnic origin. I.e.Meir Yehoshua from Kfar Etzion did the same kind of gesture for the Abu Jayada family back in 2012 when their car was firebombed from Bat Ayin.) Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My analysis is commonsense, and is confirmed by what the photographer says, which is that she saw a scene of IDF soldiers with her child, and got out her camera and asked them if she could take a shot. That translates as restaging an incident, and posing for a photo, not 'on the spur of the moment'. The fact that it might have been taken in those circumstances is irrelevant. The positioning of the soldiers and the boy perfects corroborates that it is a posed shot, since as numerous comments have remarked, you do not in standard procedure in Israel protect children that say (he is not protected). It can't be used because of these significant and confessed facts.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking for permission to take a picture and re-staging it is not the same thing. A 4.5 year old isn't likely to co-operate with a staged photo. Anyway, since there is no overwhelming support for my position I switched to the oneKingsindian offerd. WarKosign (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: Thanks. Kingsindian (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Training manual

The training manual which Israel says was written by Hamas is mentioned in two places in this article (Ctrl-F "manual" and you'll find them). Only in the second place is it mentioned that Hamas has called the manual a forgery. It seems unideal to have two paragraphs in two places about this minor object, and less ideal to include Hamas' response in old only one of those places. -sche (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) typofix 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: You are correct, I added the (chronologically) second mention of the manual without noticing it was already there. Now I unified the two mentions removing duplications. Feel free to copyedit, my English is far from perfect. WarKosign (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And, speaking of English skills that aren't perfect — I just noticed a typo in my original post. :P -sche (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

972mag.com is a blog site

@GGranddad: in your edit you used a blog site as a source.

"+972 is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of journalists, bloggers and photographers whose goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and Palestine. Our collective is committed to human rights and freedom of information, and we oppose the occupation. However, +972 Magazine does not represent any organization, political party or specific agenda."

This is a very severe case, if it is true surely there are better sources. WarKosign (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree its WP:UNDUE to use such sources.If it was really important we would see it in mainstream media--Shrike (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a better source. The Israeli response should be included. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another good reason that such sources are better as it at least tries to give all sides of the story including some doubts about the truthfulness of the report.--Shrike (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There are two sources there for that story and both are good.One is Defense for Children International and NGO and the other one is +927, funny how you do not mention the other source. I could have just put it in with one source but I used two.GGranddad (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what the general opinion here is about using 972mag. The reason Israeli response was not included in that piece is given there +972 has approached the IDF spokesperson for comment, which will be added once it is received. As far as I can see, nothing in the piece is factually untrue. The NYT article is quite recent, a day or so old. Kingsindian (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Usually, one should not use WP:PRIMARY sources for reporting incidents. So DCI is not a good source by itself. Using secondary source is the preferred practice on WP, to establish notability. Attributing the claim to DCI, as you did, is good when using primary sources. Kingsindian (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the NYT report DCI are not the primary source for this, it was reported on Palestine today website and picked up by another NGO from Geneva,Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights.Their report is here [20]. It includes another couple of cases as well.GGranddad (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are WP:SPS are not acceptable as WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not quite. Your eye for 'policy' is limited to a dislike slant, Shrike, for you have ignored numerous uses of sources in the article that might be queried on the same grounds (predominantly Israeli fringe sources). Just noting that it has a blog in the link address means nothing. This an numerous other articles created recently refer to blogs (JPost,The Times of Israel, Haaretz, etc.

• http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/07/17/332205089/two-funerals-in-israel-and-gaza-each-side-mourns-its-dead
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/22/in-the-fight-between-israel-and-hamas-gazas-hospitals-are-in-the-middle
• http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/37961-140723-liveblog-no-gaza-ceasefire-in-sight LiveBlog
• http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/07/08/breaking-idf-commences-operation-protective-edge-against-hamas/ first] and [http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2014/07/18/live-updates-ground-operation-gaz

Not to speak of numerous things that anyone might contest as RS

• http://www.voanews.com/content/hamas-says-no-deal-with-israel-on-extending-truce/2406827.html
• http://www.debka.com/article/24078/printversion (certainly 'ratshit' compared to +972.)
• http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/17954/idf-strikes-major-blow-gaza-terrorists-rockets-reach-israels-nort
• http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/gaza-missiles-reach-zichron-yaakov-in-northern-israel/2014/07/09 (inferior in reportage to +972
• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182702 (Arutz Sheva, a settler tabloid not known to be reliable except for hysteria)
• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/16/israel-warns-gazans-to-leave-homes-as-hamas-urged-to-accept-cease-fire (notoriously trash-pushing spinner )

It depends therefore. I used to believe that, but now believe there are 'blogs', subjective opinionizing sites, and informal groups of journalists of considerable competence, and a career background in mainstream journalism, who provide much of what the mainstream misses. +972 certainly gives opinions, but it also is an extremely useful reference for summaries of Israel press information not translated into English. Mondoweiss for example has had very good coverage at times of key events unreported and intelligent editing should look to each case, and not wave a general rule.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Both +972 and Mondoweiss are highly partisan activist sources that have and should be avoided. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about all the Jewish websites used on here by pro Israeli supporters.Are we going to get rid of all of them as well? Plus fake terrorist info sites?GGranddad (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

+972 journalists have had their work published in many main stream media outlets including NYT, Washington Post,The Guardian, Haaretz,Reuters,Huffington Post,Le Monde and CNN.Hardly fringe stuff in my book.The people publishing on +972 are professional journalists who have worked for big name newspapers.GGranddad (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Blogs which are run by otherwise reliable news sites are often reliable. That is not a blanket statement of acceptance for all blogs. Per WP:BLPSPS "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." 972 clearly fails this standard as their own website reads "We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole" and "+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine." further they specifically say they print articles from unsolicited submissions. The NYT also covered the story, use that.[21] and keep it in line with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Use both. The New York Times has placed the Golan Heights in Israel. They just put an Israeli demographer on the payroll (Arnon Soffer)who wrote that:-

When 2.5 million people live in a closed-off Gaza, it’s going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day.”

If the audience is middle class the NYTs is not reliable. If the audience is the readership of The New York Review of Books, it is highly reliable because it contains the best Israeli reportage, of the kind you get often also in +972.

Proper place for numbers of rockets fired/destroyed and hamas military claims

Currently this outdated information resides in Israeli casualties section, where it definitely doesn't belong.

Number of rockets fired on Israel could go into impact on residents, but what about rockets destroyed/remaining in posession of Hamas ? Similar statistics of numbers of IDF attacks can also be added. Timeline section or article don't fit since this information is a summary, not time specific. Do we want a new section for military statistics ? WarKosign (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shields redux

(Unarchiving from talk page)

@Spud770: Regarding your edit here. As I explained in my edit summary, this is duplication and too categorical a statement. The "human shields" claim is heavily contested and therefore has a big section just below discussing all the claims. All the points made in your references, including the Hamas leader's statement are discussed there. All such claims must be attributed and discussed, as is done in the section (Israel, Hamas, UN, EU, etc.) As to activists, that is quite a separate matter. This section is about involuntary human shielding, say by Hamas and others, which is a violation of international humanitarian law. This is totally different from voluntary acts by international activists. Kingsindian (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This section is not (only) about involuntary human shields; it is about Hamas encouraging civilians to act as human shields, essentially as voluntary shields. The sources all refer to both the citizens and the activists as voluntary "human shields." If there are other reliable sources contesting the existence of voluntary human shields let them be provided.

The existence of voluntary human shields is also important as it relates to civilian deaths. Spud770 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: As I have said already, the claim about Hamas encouraging civilians is already present in the section. And, as I also said already, this is a contested claim and a categorical statement like "civilians acted as human shields" is not correct. As to the activists, you may have noticed the title of this section namely "Violations of international humanitarian law" (IHL). Voluntary acts by activists do not come under this, nor is any source provided which claims this violates IHL. Kingsindian (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources all say that civilians acted as human shields. This has nothing to do with Hamas and it is not a contested claim. If you believe it is, please bring other sources. You are correct that volunteering as a human shield is not a violation of IHL. The sub-section is titled "Civilian deaths," even though civilian deaths are not necessarily a violation of IHL either. But the existence of human shields relates directly to civilian deaths is important to include in the article. Spud770 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770:

• The section on human shields discusses other sources. There are contestations about what counts as human shielding, and whether there was indeed human shielding. As regards to what counts as human shielding, there are issues regarding forcing or urging people to stay in their homes, or firing rockets from near civilian structures etc. These claims are all discussed in the section, all sourced. You can see this.
• As regards the civilian deaths, you are correct that the relation of human shields to civilian deaths should be presented. Therefore, there is a huge subsection about "human shields" within the "civilian deaths" section.Kingsindian (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Still, the issue of voluntary human shields is quite clear from the sources and deserves mention. It should not be conflated with the issue of urged or forced human shields, which is indeed contested. Spud770 (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: You are not correct that the voluntary human shields has not been contested. For example, the first source quoted refers to the Kaware family, which was investigated by B'Tselem here, which states that it was not a voluntary human shield, but an inadvertent or careless use of an airstrike. This has already been discussed on the talk page (search for human shields in the talk page archives, there is a big discussion and RfC on this). The international activists are quite a separate case, as I mentioned, but as far as I know, none of them have been killed, so their relevance to civilian deaths is dubious. However, I agree on one point, that the heading "civilian deaths" is a bit awkward, because civilian deaths are not by themselves violations of IHL. There have been some other discussions about how to reorganize this section, see discussion here, which was inconclusive but suggestive. Kingsindian (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

B'tselem's account does not appear to contradict what is mentioned in the many NPOV news sources cited in my edit (and there are more) that people willingly used themselves as human shields. (I don't see where B'tselem refers to that event as an 'inadvertent or careless airstrike' either.)

If you wish to separate 'civilian' volunteers from 'activist' volunteers, I have no problem with that (though I question the necessity). Re. the previous discussions on the talk pages: as far as I see, they only dealt with involuntary human shields. The issue of voluntary human shields was never raised in the talk pages nor mentioned in the article, which is why I added it. Spud770 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: B'Tselem's account is as follows: they got warning at 1:30 to evacuate, they evacuated. At 2:50, a missile was fired, hitting the solar water tank on the roof. People went up to investigate, then another missile hit at 3:00 while they were on the roof. The IDF claimed that it was too late to stop the second missile, (a claim B'Tselem rejected, but that is not relevant here). This is in no way an account of human shielding. The sources you quoted were all very close in time to the attack, when things were unclear and Israel was itself either not sure, or spinning this (take your pick based on your estimate of how nefarious they are). It is not fair to present this as uncontested fact, since this is obviously a loaded accusation. As to the voluntary human shielding by activists, that should be separated out clearly, since as far as I know, nobody has died. Kingsindian (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I should add that there are many other issues with this supposed "human shielding". These are all discussed in an RfC on this. For example, homes are not considered military targets, a point the B'Tselem report also makes. So the claim of "human shielding" does not apply in many cases (including the Kaware case). These are all issues to be considered. Just because an ill-informed reporter calls it "human shielding" does not make it so. Reporters are not known to be international humanitarian law experts. Kingsindian (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Human shielding has a very specific legal definition. I believe that the first sentence in the "human shields" section ("Civilians and activists in Gaza have used themselves as 'human shields' in attempts to prevent Israeli attacks") should be altered or rephrased in some way. The term must be used with caution(similar to words like "torture" and "genocide). The ICRC defines it as "using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations". Stress the word "using". The ICRC concludes that "the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.". Civilians and activists putting themselves in harms way on their own accord is not human shielding unless their presence is being deliberately used by Hamas. It does not constitute a war crime if its not deliberate, and therefore can not be categorized as a form of human shielding.

If a group of civilians decide to voluntarily decide to stay near military as deterrents but Hamas has nothing to do with it then that cannot be defined as human shielding, and human rights organizations concur with me on this point.

Of course, if you disagree with my interpretation or you have separate reliable sources, such as judgements made by legal scholars, that groups of civilians voluntarily staying in combat zones constitutes "human shielding", feel free to bring it up. JDiala (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: You are correct in your assessment, in my view. However, I wonder if you have read the above discussion (quite long I know, not blaming you for tl;dr) in which I make the same points, and the reply by Spud770 was that "voluntary human shielding" (very bad term, in my view) should be included because of the section is called "civilian deaths". I do not accept this argument. Kingsindian (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Yes, I agree with you. I thought I'd just bring some sources in. The term "voluntary" human shielding has no relevance as a legal term; it's more of an emotive propaganda thing to portray Hamas as something its not. In my view, the term human shielding has two very different interpretations. One is the legal and scholarly interpretation. The other is the journalistic interpretation thrown around on the internet and media, often accompanied by the defamation of Hamas. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it must abide by encyclopedic standards; therefore I believe the former interpretation is the one we should consistently abide by. That would mean the near-total removal of the term "human shield", "voluntary" or not, unless it's used in a secondary context (for example, "Israel claims Hamas is using human shields"), because the UN, human rights organizations and other reputable sources have failed to find conclusive evidence as of yet that Hamas has a policy of deliberately using human shields, which would, of course, be the legal definition and also constitute a war crime under IHR. JDiala (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@JDiala: @Kingsindian: Apologies for the delayed response. A Google search of "voluntary human shields" will reveal several legal articles on this subject - this is not a propaganda term. While the status of voluntary human shields in international law is disputed, their existence is not. The news sources cited and many other articles make that clear. Spud770 (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: This is not good enough, I'm afraid. As I mentioned, the sources listed are only a reporter reporting Israeli claims or making an informal claim which carries little weight. And as I mentioned, there are serious doubts about the Kaware family. And one should keep in mind WP:BURDEN. It is not up to me to give legal sources directly addressing these incidents. The only legal source (B'Tselem) does not support it. The statement as it currently stands is not correct and should be removed, at least while we discuss this. I am not able to revert, because of 1RR restrictions in this area. Kingsindian (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

CNN, Newsweek, and Middle East Monitor sources are not reporting Israeli claims, they are simply stating the existence of voluntary human shields. Nothing in the B'tzelem account contradicts the media reports. Your objections sound like WP:IJDLI. If you have a reliable source that voluntary human shields have not been used in this conflict, by all means bring it. Otherwise the statement should stay. Spud770 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Spud770: Unfortunately, the discussion has gone nowhere, and you have neither listened to any of my arguments, nor removed the edit while we discussed, nor incorporated anything into the text which provides a contrary viewpoint to the bald statement that "civilians and activists used themselves as human shields". In these circumstances, I have no choice but to apply WP:WIKILAWYERING. Since I had reverted the edit in the beginning, per WP:STATUSQUO, you were wrong to reinstate it wholesale unless there is consensus. I ask that you remove it and find consensus, either by opening an RfC or some other method. Kingsindian (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable. Spud770 is right on this issue. CNN, Newsweek, and Middle East Monitor are reliable sources. B'Tselem is an NGO and not legal source.--Tritomex (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Claims of blockade legality that are not in the source and other POV claims from BG sections

a) The Haaretz source nowhere claims that "most of international bodies" see the blockade as illegal, it cites few. So this is WP:OR

b) Flailed to address WP:NPOV as opposite views on legality, and there are many, are not mentioned [22]--Tritomex (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

c) Hamas mounted a counter-coup?

d) The US tried to undone results of elections--This is POV.--Tritomex (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: (a) and (b) The Haaretz source is not meant to establish that claim. See WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. The statement "most international bodies" see the blockade as illegal is a summary from the lead and body of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article. I have no idea who wrote the other page, but the page I mentioned is much more comprehensive. Almost nobody considers the entire blockade to be legal. There was just one UN report, the Palmer report, which found (only the naval) blockade to be legal. There are tons of reports on the other side which declare the naval blockade illegal. So the statement is a correct summary.

(c) and (d) These come from the Nathan Thrall reference and David Rose reference, as cited. Not sure what is POV there. Kingsindian (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This not simple calculation like the policy say you should find a source that explictly says that also this goes against the policy becouse it does advance a certain position.--Shrike (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This is original research, as no source for such claim exists in any of this sources. There are opinions that see it as illegal and other that does not see it as illegal. However claiming that "most international institutions" are saying this, is done solely through self counting=original research. You used for example this source [23], an internationally recognized expert, Spelman E, 'The Legality of the Israeli Blockade of the Gaza Strip', for another claim. She finds the blockade legal. Many other similar views can be red from other experts [24] so self made calculations can not be used as a sources for controversial claims, reliable secondary sources are needed to back such counting.Tritomex (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Another term can be used then if "most international bodies" term is not acceptable. How about the UN, Red Cross and 50 Human rights orgs believe the blockade to be illegal?

In June 2012, a group of 50 international aid agencies, including the World Health Organization and Oxfam, called on Israel to lift its siege and blockade of Gaza, stating:

'For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children. We the undersigned say with one voice: "end the blockade now."'[25][26]. GGranddad (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex and Shrike: I have added the Richard Falk reference about the "overwhelming consensus". Kingsindian (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't use source that doesn't even mention the topic of the article its WP:UNDUE and WP:OR in context of 2014 conflict.--Shrike (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I do not understand your point. The reference is meant to establish illegality of blockade. It of course cannot refer to the 2014 conflict, since it was written before 2014. How else can I talk about the legality of the blockade without having a source which discusses it? Kingsindian (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:This is solely policy based argument. Richard Falk a) does not even mention "international institutions" and his view would not represent the view of majority of international institutions, anyway. Reliable secondary source which states that the majority of international institutions are saying that the maritime blockade is illegal under international law is needed. Otherwise, this is WP:OR. I have 10 sources claiming that the blockade is not illegal but its not upon me to conclude that this 10 sources are representing the majority f international institutions.--Tritomex (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already provided a source that 50 humanitarian orgs state that the blockade is illegal, as in against the law plus the UN and the Red Cross. You can use that one if you want to but please do not ask for one when obviously one has been presented to you Tritomex.Also, what are your 10 sources?Let's see them. GGranddad (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Aid agencies are not experts on international law, there are thousands of aid agencies around the world 50 or any number of aid agencies claim can not be translated into "majority of international institutions" without original research.Tritomex (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Red Cross are experts on International Law being as they deal with the Geneva convention plus Amnesty and others are also experts on International law. Face it,many orgs believe that the blockade is illegal, that is a fact. I am still waiting to see your 10 that believe it is not.GGranddad (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok so the Red Cross has such opinion. We do not discuss here what each of this agencies claimed. Here are dozens of legal experts that claims that the blockade is legal [[27]], although this is also unimportant. The only question is that there is no source to backup the claim that the "majority of international institutions" are saying that the blockade is illegal. We do not discuss the legality of the blockade, but the lack of source that states that the "majority of international institutions " claims that the blockade is illegal. There is no a single reliable secondary source saying this.Tritomex (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not count 10 in your link, I count none actually, they are all wording their replies very carefully and all are dodging the Geneva convention obviously, also I would not believe anything Alan Dervershits has to say, he has been turned over so many times by everyone.If you do not like the term majority of International institutions then that can be changed to hundreds of NGO's, the Red Cross, various UN agencies and uncle tom cobley and all think the blockade is illegal because they do actually think that.I think you are just being picky because of your political stance. The actual phrase that is there now is pretty much backed up by the sources.You really cannot change facts.GGranddad (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tritomex: You are looking at the wrong page. They are assessing the flotilla raid, not the blockade. I have asked you to look at the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article, which is much more comprehensive. If you have an alternative phrasing, which shows the disparity of the two viewpoints (as WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE) requires, please give it. I can use "most international law experts" instead of "most international institutions" if you prefer that. The Israeli argument that Gaza is a "hostile territory" is already presented. @GGranddad:: a bit less of WP:BATTLEGROUND please. To everyone: I would be happy with any phrase that reflects the "overwhelming consensus" as Falk puts it. I have not done any WP:OR. See WP:SS and WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. I obviously cannot list every single institution in the world here. Kingsindian (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As it was said do not one here talked about the blockade, and no links I have to copy&paste here this views.

Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of International Law and Diplomacy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that under the law of armed conflict, which would be in effect given Hamas's rocket attacks on Israel and Israel's responses, Israel has "a right to prevent even neutrals from shipping arms to [Hamas]". Eric Posner, international law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, noting that the raid had "led to wild accusations of illegality", wrote that blockades are lawful during times of armed conflict (such as the Coalition blockade of Iraq during the first Gulf War), and that "war-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas". He compared Israel's blockade to the Union blockade by the Union against the Confederacy (a non-state) during the U.S. Civil War. The U.S. Supreme Court later affirmed the legitimacy of that blockade.

Philip Roche, a partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with the London-headquartered international law firm Norton Rose, also said: "On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza, and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal." The basis for that is the law of blockade, derived from international law that was codified in the 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War, and which was then updated in 1994 in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea--"a legally recognized document". He addressed the charge by Human Rights Watch that the blockade of a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against civilians, ostensibly violating Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, by saying "This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanctions are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own."

International law Professor Ed Morgan of the University of Toronto, likewise, noting that it is clear that Israel and Hamas are in a state of armed conflict, which has been noted by the General Assembly to the Human Rights Council in its Goldstone Report, wrote that a blockade of an enemy’s coast is an established military tactic. He pointed out that it is recognized as a means at the Security Council’s disposal under Article 42 of the UN Charter, and is similarly set forth in Article 539 of the Canadian Forces manual Counter-Insurgency Operations. He wrote:

Having announced its blockade, Israel had no obligation to take the ships’ crew at their word as to the nature of the cargo. The blockading party has the right to fashion the arrangements, including search at a nearby port, under which passage of humanitarian goods is permitted.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said "Israel has a right to know – they're at war with Hamas – has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in. It's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping ... 3,000 rockets on my people.'"

Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law at Harvard Law School, wrote that the legality of blockades as a response to acts of war “is not subject to serious doubt.” He likened Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza to U.S. naval actions in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which the U.S. had deemed lawful though not part of an armed conflict. I will add more sources later Tritomex (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about manipulation of Wikipedia - exposed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Media_coverage

"In Israel, according to Naomi Chazan, the Gaza war has sparked "an equally momentous conflagration at the heart of Israeli society": attempts to question government policy have been met with severe verbal and physical harassment, incidents of Arab-bashing occur daily, and 90% of internet posts on the war are racist or constitute incitement." --- This is a lie! The Times of Israel article cited says 45%, NOT 90!!!! Even an Iranian like me can see the blatant Electronic Intifada infiltration of Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.47.39.2 (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The source says "many of these are recorded by the Coalition against Racism, which reports that fully 45% of the posts on the war are racist and an additional 45% constitute incitement". I'm guessing they just combined the 45 and 45 and got 90. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So this is WP:OR racism or (incitement) can not be categorized as same, added together in original research. Incitement can be directed against racist for example.Tritomex (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Naomy Hazan is not notable by name but as a representative of the 'New Israel' NGO. There should probably be an NGO section in the article since there's just so god-damn many of them (a gazzillibillion!) vying for attention and funding. I'm also not sure her political NGO can be used for statistics (read: mangled-up heuristics), but we've allowed so many others', so it requires a wider debate. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone want to change the clearly racist headline of this section? Racism is unwelcome on wikipedia, I believe.GGranddad (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of such plastering titles, I went bold and changed it. No one, btw, uses a term 'paly' as a pejorative (there's plenty of other stuff that's used) -- but I figured, this change is better to focus on the "damning" concerns about NGO silliness (which is indeed a problem). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"the majority of whom were Palestinian civilians"

incorrect; source needed. are you at all aware that hamas activists run around in civilian cloths? when they are killed, most of them are simply tagged as civilians by the government - hamas themselfs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.81.109 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument (I hope) that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians. Percent of the civilians among them is disputed and may be bellow 50%, so I changed the statement to say that most of the casualties are Palestinians without referring to their militant vs civilian status here. WarKosign (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: The source you added says "mostly civilians", it doesn't says that they were mostly Palestinian civilians. Please add a source that actually backs up the claim you insist on making. WarKosign (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, according to this, if you apply a simple WP:CALC, percent of civilian palestinians is 49.53%, which is not a majority. WarKosign (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's either 49.53% or 50.9%, they give both 2200 and 2140 as number of casualties. Anyway, I suggest not going into the percent of civilians vs militants in the opening paragraph. WarKosign (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I added more links.GGranddad (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One of them actually says that the majority or the people killed in Gaza were Palestinian Civilians. The article speaks about people killed in general, including in Israel - so the source still doesn't back up the claim completely. I would rather keep the lead paragraph undisputable, without the need to present different viewpoints. The fact that by far most of the casualties are Palestinians can't be disputed. Percent of civilians can, especially as final numbers will arrive from the different organizations. WarKosign (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually two of them state that and they were.The percentage of civilians is only disputed by Israel. I see no need to remove well sourced factual information, the sources back up what has been written in the article.GGranddad (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)