Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

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

Intro

Moved to Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Lead

Request permission to upload photo

I want to know if would be okay to upload a photo of a victim of the Israeli assault. The victim is a "baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank." [1] I know user:23prootie(backed by a few other users) has contested the use of other photos because they were not of "the real victims of this conflict i.e. the women and children" and that the photos were not "tasteful and classy (like the images above which are in black&white and therefore no blood)" and there were copyright issues.

But this image past the tests because it is

1. of a child 2. Black and white, no blood. 3. Under a license accepted by wikipedia.

I have also uploaded an image of destroyed buildings [2]. I believe no one will contest that one. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just realized how are we supposed to find photos of victims that contain no blood. They didn't die from pneumonia! La Howla - Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to elaborate on the 'Under a license accepted by wikipedia' ? Is the provenance of this image known because we seem to keep hitting issues with people putting AFP and such like photos on flickr ? I swear that in the end we're going to end up with images of the cats and dogs killed on both sides because everyone likes cats and dogs. What next, architects complaining that showing images of destroyed buildings is pornographic ? Bizarre. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The photos are released under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, the photos were uploaded by an organization called the ISM, and their web site links to the flickr account [3]. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just trawled through hundreds of photos in the getty image library looking for this picture just in case it's AFP etc. I couldn't find it. That of course proves nothing but that's where these kind of images have been before. Does that help in the slightest ? Not sure. Hopefully including this photo won't turn into a 'prove with absolute 100% certainty that evolution through natural selection is a fact' type of argument over the provenance. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I really do think that this is the original work of the organization. I know that there are people on flickr who upload images from AFP, as you have mentioned, but I do think that based on different factors (It is a Palestinian-based organization, they have access to Gaza, they have photos not found on any other news site that I have seen), I do think that these are their photos. Works that are not theirs but are in their photostream are under all rights reserved tags, meaning we can't use them. The works under the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 can be trusted as their work. The only problem is whether uploading it will lead to another edit war. I need clearance. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This ISM photostream is really helpful. Personally I would give higher priority to wide angle photos of the devastation caused by 'precision bombing' if there's going to be yet another controversy over images coming out of Gaza. I think the priority should be so show what defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[56] and to prevent the rearming of Hamas. looks like given that that is apparently what this is for. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are not many photos with a bigger scope of the destruction, let alone pictures free for us to use. I chose that particular photo of the buildings because it is taken from a distance allowing for a bigger glimpse of the destruction. I don't think anyone will object to the photo that I have added already. As for the photo of the infant, there is not many shots of the victims of the assault, the ones available at ISM are shot from a close angle featuring only one victim in each photo. So the options are limited to us, thus we use what we have. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough..and before anyone starts contesting graphic images again showing dead and injured people (..not wishing to jump down anyone's throat before they've even said a word but I'm going to anyway...) can I ask them first to test their arguments in the contexts of other articles e.g. Viet Nam war and so on and so forth to make sure they make sense as other people have tried to point out. Alternatively if this event is a somehow a special case let's hear those arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the photo with the caption "Almost one third of the victims are children including this infant killed in an explosion caused by Israelis in Attattra, northwestern Gaza" and already user:Thingg has reverted. Thus the edit war has begun, to be continued...--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I wasn't aware of this discussion. I'm just trying to help out.... :( Thingg^⊕⊗ 05:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong and I can understand your action. Thanks for reverting your edit and you are free to share your thoughts on the matter. The discussions are mostly in the archive, but I summarized some of the main points in the first post of this thread. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This image was removed between last night and this morning. I don't know by whom or for what reason, but it seemed like there was consensus here about its inclusion. I would like to remind everyone on this page of wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit [4]. I restored the image and I will leave a note on the user's page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this picture, WP:NPOV --Rick Smit (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No...and Why? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If we are going to include this picture, then- for balance- we should include a picture of one of the elementary school children's playgrounds that Hamas has fired a rocket into. The Squicks (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

balance? you do realize that 98 percent of the killed were killed by Israelis. So you think 2 percent Israelis = 98 percent Gazans and others killed by Israelis?? If you want to add the Israeli photo, go ahead and add at least 20 more Palestinian photos. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the image here on the Talk page before but it was removed by User:The Squicks with this edit who claimed it blocked his ability to post comments (unaware no doubt that without notifying me, it could constitute a form of vandalism). I am reposting the image in a smaller form so we will all know what exactly we are talking about (in anticipation of its next removal without an edit summary). I have no problem whatsoever of posting other images for balance. I do think an honest portrayal of the events on the ground is in order (something that is difficult because, to my understanding, international journalists have been denied entrance into Gaza by the IDF in violation of an Israeli court order). This makes the posting of this particular image all the more pressing.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, balance but proportion as well.

Fallacy arguments such as if we don't have A we should not have B doesn't work. While they were two photos related to Hamas attacks and none of the impact from Israeli's attacks, no one advocated removing the two photo. Instead I found one of the latter and added it to the article. The argument if we find A, then we can have B doesn't fly. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby: Let me try to understand your logic. Since the Palestinians have failed to kill any Israeli children so far due to luck, the childrens' preperations, and their own inspid incompetence, that means that those attacks morally mean less compared to the Israelis one's that succeeded? How does that fly, morally? Is there any moral difference between trying to kill someone and failing and trying to kill someone and succeeding? If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level? The Squicks (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks are you going to compare the type and amount of firepower used by both sides as being the same?? The images aren't about what each side has attempted to do, it is about what they already have done. You show the results with the images and I did say balance but proportion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no inherent objection to including the picture. I just support morally proportionate balance. So, if we represent the 'A' side with a picture we need to represent the 'B' side with another picture. I would like it if Cdogsimmons or another editor would find a 'B' side picture. (I can't do it myself, since I have never used Flicker and the other sites).

The firepower is not the same, but I'm not talking about firepower- I'm talking about both moral sides. There is an equally valid point of view on both sides. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report. But anyway, I did say add a photo though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo. Remember there is only one Palestinian photo, not 20, not 5, not 2. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The body count speaks for itself. Balance in the article IS a concern. I see no problem with presenting accurate, well sourced images portraying both sides of the conflict. As I indicated before, the IDF's censorship of the International Press is an impediment to that goal. If you want to put in 20 pictures why don't you try doing that and we'll see what the result is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have access to photos that are under the same license from the same source. But I didn't think that I needed to add anymore and that they didn't represent a bigger scope of the carnage. Here they are [5] [6] [7] [8][9] --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please upload more photos to the Commons. Other Wikipedias in many languages need the selection of photos. We also need a variety of photos of Israeli casualties. We also need more bomb damage photos from both within Israel and the Gaza Strip. Please see all the subcategories of commons:Category:2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Create more subcategories if necessary. It is difficult to find these type of free images for any conflict or war. Please upload them. See commons:Category:War casualties and commons:Category:War damage --Timeshifter (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the inspid incompetence seems to be present on both sides seeing that Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Right... At least the IDF is trying to sort out the militants from the civilians they're hiding among. Hamas fires rockets almost exclusively at population centers, and sends suicide bombers to explode in buses, restaurants and night clubs. Do you not see the moral difference here? Rabend (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Um dropping one ton bombs and firing missiles in densely populated areas doesn't suggest sorting out the militants from the civilians. No one buys the collateral damage excuse. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Always the victim, forever and ever. Rabend (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless they are winning. V. Joe (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean though don't complain if at present if there is one Palestinian photo and no Israeli photo? We had the reverse situation before (an Israeli bias in photos), some users complained, and then the situation was resolved in a civil way with a compromise. Why can't we do what now? The Squicks (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't resolved until I added the photos, and even then it is still being contested. Do what I did. Search for the photos, learn how to upload them, upload them, insert them and then prepare to defend the usage. Don't expect others to do this for you like I did. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should I attempt to do that if you and other editors are just going to prevent me from adding a photo? The Squicks (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not going to do that, assuming that the photo you find meets the set criteria for inclusion. And because you care about improving the quality of the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I would be the one to challenge your photo. Go ahead and find a photo and photos of any of the three Israeli casualties or the injured, or the shocked victims. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby, you are being very provocative. on one hand, you said this is Wikipedia, and we're only here to report, and on the other you've said "Israelis have managed to kill as many civilians as they have militants, perfectly proving that weapons should never be placed in the hands of the IDF as they are reckless and incompetent to use them.". I suggest you calm down as you are not helping this discussion. Also, the article itself currently states "*Casualty figures in Gaza cannot yet be independently verified" in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezek (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Nezek, I was quoting The Squicks. "This is Wikipedia. We don't debate morality. We just report" is not my statement, it is his. He wanted to debated the morality, and we debated it. I don't mind debating it, and of course he initiated the conversation. Being pro Israeli, The Squicks's words were like beautiful music to your ears, while my response (using the same language), was provocative and angry to you. In the end, I could give a rats a** what you say. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're being oh-so immature throughout this whole talk page. Since you took the time to explain yourself, you obviously do care what I think. It doesn't matter pro-what are you, and how you justify it: you aren't helping by arguing politics, so stop it. --Nezek (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You're being oh-so useless throughout this whole thing. Why don't you contribute something worth the time you spend commenting on my comments. Your posts don't contribute anything other than to bait people. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It is as much my place as anyone else's to tell you to stop initiating debates that contain your personal views and unverified claims. So please, don't tell me where I contribute and to go somewhere else. I'm trying keep the neutrality of this article. If anything, your personal attacks, temper, and language are attempts to bait people, and that can be said for other discussions you're a part of. For example: [10] [11] [12] [13]. I only suggested you think about your replies. As you should for your next one on this thread. --Nezek (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of your worthy contributions....Oh, but there is none. This is just the most pathetic display of whining. Why stop there, make a list of all the edits of mine that you think are "bad" and cry about them. In the meantime, I will continue to do what I want and hopefully you have more for your list. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You've made yourself into a "bad boy" in your own head, as if anyone cares, And you're trying to call /my/ comments pathetic. Man, you're measuring contributions as if they were a currency! There is nothing more ridiculous than a Wikipedian getting all defensive over a talk page comment that tells him to chill. If you don't want to take my advice, you're welcome to ignore it. --Nezek (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks: "If I fire twenty rounds into a Mosque that turn out to be blanks, and if I fire twenty rounds into a synagoge that are live- is it someone 'unbalanced' to consider both on the same level?" This is the old "intent" argument used by Israeli propaganda: Israel kill unintentionally, so Israel deserves only praise, while Palestinians kill intentionally so Palestinians deserve to die.

• And our information about intent comes from where? -- from Israel, of course! That is like getting our information about Jewish "intent" from German propaganda. But that is only half of the problem.
• The other half is that the focus on intent opens the door to thought crime, something I as an American find utterly repugnant. If someone breaks into my house and murders my children, and I try to kill the intruder, who is more blameworthy? By your intent logic, I am! -- after all, I intend to kill the intruder, whereas the intruder, who murders my children in cold-blood, without passion or intent, is blameless!
• What you fail to take into account is the justification for the intent. If I live in a place that has been under a murderous occupation for forty years, then I have good reason to hate the occupation forces: my hostile intent is justifiable.
• Condemning me for my intent alone inverts the moral order and facilitates a delusional blame the victim worldview -- delusional, because there is only so much blood we can squeeze out of a stone, as the current slaughter in the Gaza Strip demonstrates. Eventually, we run out of hospitals to bomb -- accidentally of course -- and then what do we do? NonZionist (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Infantvictim.jpg‎ && Casualties

Let's stay calm everybody. Don't make these issues personal. They should not be personal. Making things personal only messes things up. The Squicks (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Without hurting anyone feelings I'd like to suggest to remove this picture from Casualties section. I do not think it represents fairly casualties. In addition the source of this picture does not look verifiable. Here is quotes from source: "This baby, killed in an explosion, was then run over by an Israeli tank" "Hope it will do some good." AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's verifiable, refer to the video link posted above under section 'Photos'.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also recommend discussing this in the section above devoted to this subject already. Tiamut^talk 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What mates it represent the casualties unfairly? That was a real child who was killed on the Palestinian side, there are about 1000 vs 10 deaths. So I don't see what's represented unfairly — CHANDLER^#10 — 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of verifiability, the image is sensationalist. I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be), but a charred dead baby? Really? This is the same reason we removed that image of anti-Semitic protests in San Francisco; that protest may have been verifiable and not unique, but they were still at the fringe of the protests. Dead, charred babies are, as far as I can tell, still at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties. The presence of the image is just there for shock value -- sensationalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There are tasteless, offensive, and sensationalistic images all over wikipedia. Man, there is child pornography in here: Virgin Killer. Yeah, this is offensive to Israeli interests, but we are not here to take care of the ego of one side of a conflict, I am here to write an encyclopedia, which usually are better served by pictures. That said I will support removal if that is consensus, and if it is proven that the image is doctored, false, from another conflict, or a copy-vio. I am sure that if this is the case CAMERA will continue their selfless struggle for accuracy and find it - unless, of course, the image is true, in which case some other way to make it the others fault will be found. Until then, your reasons are not good reasons to remove, nor reasons to remove antisemitic protests in San Francisco (which if I am not mistaken, were not removed, but moved to an appropiate sub-article). --Cerejota (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerejota, if you're going to make up your own comment and respond to that like Cdog did below, I'm not responding to you either. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 06:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

moved by Superpie (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Disagree. Disagree. Sensationalist? What does that mean? If you are shocked by this image, perhaps it is because the thought of dead children is shocking. As a matter of FACT, there are 300 of them in the Gaza strip today as a result of this conflict. As a father of a 6 month old, I personally don't like this picture any more than you do. I wish it didn't exist. But to remove this image is TANTAMOUNT TO CENSORSHIP!!!! tantamount to censorship. This is the reality. A dead child. If you want a cookie cutter version of that reality reflected by wikipedia we have vastly different ideas about what this project is about. I refer again to our set policy that wikipedia is not censored - WP:CENSOR. "Sensationalism" is in the eye of the beholder for which I do not see a set policy. I don't understand you when you say that this dead child is the "fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties" besides my perception that you would like to minimize the importance of this image for whatever reason I have no idea. This is the image that we have. If you want to give us other images to debate lets debate them, but don't hand me a line like "you don't like this picture so it shouldn't be here". It's about as effective as the 5 anonymous editors who have tried to surreptitiously remove the image while no one was looking in the last two days.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything that Cdogsimmons said multiplied by 300. Perhaps we should step back a bit and make a list of the mandatory minimum requirement in terms of images for this article i.e. identify key themes e.g. lots of dead/injured human beings, trashed infrastructure/medical stuff, no food/water, rocket attacks, demonstrations and so on and make/agree a list of what must be in this article to illustrate what is happening for a reader. It might provide a bit of structure to efforts. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean, I am almost appalled that you say you agree with him, considering you're generally civil and on the mark (as in the remainder of your comment, sans the first sentence). Hopefully you only agreed with the content of Cdog's comment, rather than its tenor, although I'm not even sure why you would do even that, because Cdog for some reason seems to think "babies" and "children" are equivalent (apparently just for the sake of his arguement). Even though I specifically say "I'd accept a picture of dead or ailing civilians, even children (gruesome as those images still may be)" he centered his whole arguement around the fact that many children are dying and the allegation that I just don't want gruesome images in the article. But, as I said, if Cdog just wants to yell and scream about something, he can go to his corner and do that. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cdog, try this for a second: Read my comment aloud, and then get a friend to read yours, ensuring he includes the SHOUTING!!!! you implied with your comment. Your reaction in that scenario should hopefully be something to the effect of well, if the guy's going to be such a jerk about it, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to him. I just wanted you to act that out so it would be no surprise to you when I say that if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you. -- tariqabjotu 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, please don't take me too literally, I'm rarely literal. I'm not advocating a gallery of 300 dead babies, that can be left to contemporary artists. Yes, I agreed with the content rather than it's tenor. I like peace and quiet. The basic problem is of course that we somehow must show what has happened in a way that genuinely adds value to the article and it will certainly upset some people. I have no strong attachment to this particular image but nor do I see a charred dead baby as either "Sensationalism" or different in any way whatsoever from a dead adult, child, soldier or militant. Maybe that's just me but I really don't. One thing I tried to say before somewhere is that these moral judgements people make about images are often based of local/regional/religious etc cultural value systems that can't be extrapolated globally and Wikipedia is global. What you find acceptable/unacceptable/sensationalist will of course be based on a local set of rules in your head/society. Those rules won't necessary make any sense whatsoever in a different place. For example, feet are extremely offensive here but there's no hesitation in showing blood and guts in the media. Death has a completely different treatment in a Buddhist society vs others. We need to find the best images for the article. I don't know what they should be but I'm not willing to exclude any on the basis of local cultural tastes/values. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

..and to me choosing the images is an optimisation problem not a moral problem. The objective is a good encyclopedia article and not moral/cultural imprinting by inclusion or exclusion of material. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. and on that note I would like to bring up what tariqabjotu said above. If this image really is "at the fringe of Palestinian injuries and casualties", and can be verified as an extreme and isolated case, it would mean it doesn't fairly represent the Palestinian casualties, and should be removed. I especially want to hear tariq's say and what sources he is basing this on. --Nezek (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariqabjot, you appear to be pretty quick to say my argument is not worth responding to because of those three capitalized words. You said, "if you're going to be such a jerk about this, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to you." And on my talk page you said, "judging by your comment on the article talk page, mere words are incomprehensible to you" which I take to be close to a personal attack. My comments were not intended to offend but to stress the importance of the issue. Perhaps I was out of line although I notice you like to use bold yourself. But what's up? I asked you an honest question about a matter of policy [14] and you respond saying I'm not worth talking to. I'm not very happy about such a response, especially from an Administrator and a member of the Mediation Committee. Just so we stay on track, you cited WP:UNDUE on my talk page as the reason why this photo should be removed for "Sensationalism." I really don't think that one picture of a casualty on this very long page is undue. And I don't think the picture is as clearly sensationalist as you claim it to be. Now there is also a picture of a wounded man near the bottom of the page. So maybe it does violate WP:UNDUE. (I really shouldn't have to make these arguments for you). Two pictures of two of over 5000 Palestinian casualties. Is that undue? Do you want to take a vote? I also second what Nezek and Sean.hoyland said above.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, Cdog, you're making up your own comment and then responding to that. You are simplifying my point to "I have a problem with images of casualties" or even "I have a problem with images of dead children". As the original comment said, but you have ignored twice, my complaint comes from the fact that we're showing a dead baby. How many babies have been killed in the conflict? I don't know, and I am unable to find a source that suggests a significant proportion of the people killed have been babies. However, infants and babies hardly get a mention in the article (once or twice in this collosal article). We only have five dead babies confirmed in the text of the article, and one of those is pictured in the article. Out of a 1100+ casulaties, we're representing these five mentioned in the article. I don't think we should assume there are a significant number more are dead babies, unless we can demonstrate that is the case. -- tariqabjotu 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But Tariq, the picture fairly represents the injury to the baby, an individual. Many people have died in many different ways. Practically we don't have the luxury of doing an injury frequency analysis and picking the mode, selecting an image of a victim with the associated cause of death from a library of victims categorised by cause of death and so on in an attempt to somehow comply with a novel interpretation of WP:UNDUE. A Palestinian died as a direct result of IDF actions, she was a baby, we have a picture, that's it. We need more pictures so that we can find the best ones to illustrate what happened. We should approach that in a dispassionate way to optimise the quality of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are OK with uploading the image.Trent370 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sean, maybe you (based on your 14:42, 16 January 2009 comment) are incapable of seeing the difference between an adult and a child (and by extension a baby), but I think it's obvious to everyone else. That's why we (and the media) have capitalized on the number of women killed, the number of children killed, and, now, the fact that babies were killed. Those are important distinctions. We're choosing to illustrate Palestinian deaths by depicting the most defenseless human being possible. If a significant number of babies were killed, then it's appropriate. But, I see no evidence of that in the article or anywhere else. You're pulling the classic slippery slope fallacy; I'm not asking that we create a catalog of images of victims, and select based on a variety of factors that you're inventing to just to make your arguement, so let's drop that line of attack. Again, if you want to make up a comment, and respond to that, fine. Don't involve me. -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that I was wrong to shout. I apologize if I've been a jerk.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, thank you for clarifying your point. As I've said before on this page, I have no problem with other pictures being presented. I have no problem choosing pictures that are representative of the conflict. To my knowledge, there are NO other pictures of any dead individuals (babies, children, adults, the elderly, Hamas members, non-Hamas members, etc.) available at this time on Wikipedia. None. At least none have been brought to my attention. There was a picture showing a number of dead Hamas policemen on this page earlier but it was removed for copyright reasons. Your argument appears to be that this picture only represents dead babies. I disagree. I think of babies as being within the category of children so I think it is also representative of dead children. I also think of babies as being individuals so the picture is representative of dead individuals. I also tend to think of the dead as being casualties, so the picture is representative of casualties. I object to the way you are personalizing this as you did in the comment above aimed at Sean.hoyland ("maybe you... are incapable") and your previous comments made toward myself. Allow me to reiterate, as I have said before on more than one occasion on this page, I have no objection to you or anyone else presenting other images to post on this page that might be more "representative". I do have a problem with people trying to remove this image without debate after there was some consensus found to keep it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't read the article because of the presence of the image, I feel too sick with it being there to be able to concentrate on the wording. So, to me, removing the image from the article would not amount to censorship, because its presence already acts as a barrier to me reading the no doubt neutrally worded, sourced and informative text on the conflict. Of course it is sensationalist, and not in any way necessary for understanding the article. But I doubt anybody cares about such cold hard logic. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is uncensored. (See WP:CENSOR) There is also some precedent for graphic images of the innocent victims of war. See the picture of a dead child killed during the Mai Lai Massacre at Vietnam War or the picture of the victims of the Holocaust at World War II.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:BouvierBernoisetPoulpe.JPG

Do this with your dog, after breathing and seating back, but before posting.

[edit conflict]::Totally agree with user:Nezek user:Tariqabjotu and others above. There's no consensus for this photo. It is extreme and unbalanced and unverified, even if it is "free." Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion below regarding the proper verification of this image. Extreme yes, but then again, this a War we're talking about. Unbalanced seems like your pov, but removal of the photograph would not be the solution for that problem. I suggest finding corresponding pictures showing casualties on the Israeli side if that is your concern.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Hey, guys, most of the last comments have been very personal, which is just going to make coming to a consensus harder. It's very easy to get lumped into one side of this debate, with camps forming, when we really have more mixed/neutral/nuanced/moderate beliefs. I think we all just need to take a few minutes after reading someone's response to sit back, take a deep breath, throw our dog's neopet toy, and so on before writing anything more. The Squicks (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest removal of image of dead baby and attempt to find consensus

The image has been removed again, this time by Tundrabuggy (who also removed the pictures from the morgue) [15]. His edit summary: no consensus for " burned baby "- removed morgue photo on grounds that there is no balance on Israel pics per talk. Please do not return photos until balance and consensus is achieved. I have not restored it because there truly does not appear to be consensus. Let's try to find the consensus:

Should the picture of the dead baby be displayed on the page?

Yes

The picture's copyright seems to be in order. The picture seems to be properly sourced. The picture fairly represents the facts on the ground which is that there have been over 1,000 Palestinians killed, including over 300 children. The picture, although graphic, should not be censored due to its graphic nature because to do so would violate Wikipedia's policy of WP:CENSOR. There are comparable pictures of the innocent victims of war at other Wikipedia articles (See Vietnam War and World War II).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Cdogsimmons. Offliner (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Cdogsimmons. There is no pool of free images that you can sort out to choose what you think is neutral and representational. I don't think any photo of the casualities is going to be accepted if we go by this faulty logic. The censorship that is taking place only proves that there are people who are trying to hide the facts because it shows the side they support in a bad light. This should not be acceptable. Neturality isn't about balancing the coverage, hiding facts to make one side appear in the same light as the other. Neutrality is about complete exposure without biased commentary. We show the photos and the people decide what they think about the war. Wikipedia users should make use of the resources available to Wikipedia and that includes ISM photostream and Aljazeera CC repository, who were generous enough to share material. We should be lucky that they have provided images for Wikipedians to use in recording history. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it should be shown, as Falastine fee Qalby said, neutrality isn't having the same amount of pictures of victims from both sides, if the victim ratio is 100 to 1, it would not be neutral to in anyway try to represent the causalities as equal in number. Plus that as noted WP does not censor. — CHANDLER^#10 — 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - the picture is relevant, its licensing sound. I mean, we have a picture of a bunch of broken rockets from previous events, why not something more relevant, current, and notable? Neutrality is not served by hiding facts, it is served by presenting them in a neutral fashion, and hiding this picture is not neutral, it is trying to hide incontrovertible facts: a clear violation of NPOV. --Cerejota (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• yes i believe that to forbid its inclusion is censorship Untwirl (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

balance does not mean one pic for each side, as stated much more eloquently above. Untwirl (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - People arguing about balance are making the argument that because there is no picture that is equivalent on the Israeli side that this should not then be included. You know what balance is? Find the very worst picture of the damage Hamas has inflicted on the Israelis and put the next to the very worst picture of the damage Israeli has done to Gaza. That the damage is not equivalent is not reason to not display it. I personally find it extremely difficult to look at the image, as I am sure most do. But the picture is descriptive of the damage done to Gaza, and as such should stay. Nableezy (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Copyright is in order. Because of the asymmetric nature of the war, certainly no Israeli equivalents can be found. This is same as how Israeli actions are defended from allegations of war crimes, yet no one has defended Hamas actions from allegations of terrorism, war crimes and genocide. There is little comparison between the Israeli army and Hamas' military wing, and we shouldn't pretend the two sides are equal.VR _talk 02:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it is relevant and Wikipedia is not censored (as per earlier discussions on hot topics such as Piss Christ & Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), the image is an result of the conflict. The removal of it would be to censor the article and could be perceived as taking a pro-Israeli stance by hiding it. Warfare is an ugly business and causes tragedy, something which the image illustrate (cf. the images by Raghu Rai covering the Bhopal disaster) Is it hitting people in the face? Yes, but then they should not have accessed the article in the first place, no? 88.148.219.153 (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Under circumstances where images are unnecessarily offensive, they should be removed. This is according to wikipedia's own censorship policy (last sentence). This situation is different from Piss Christ & the Muhammed cartoons, which I've explained further down. Therefore their precedence does not apply here. My comments below explain in more detail. Thanks. Cider86 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Of course. Neutrality does not mean there shouldn't be controversial content, this is a picture that illustrates the human tragedy in the event. RomaC (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• YES!!! I have been following this article for some time now and I must say it's quite Pro-Israel for claiming "Neutrality." Neutrality doesn't mean that both sides must be equal - it means they are only represented equally - without bias. Trying to forcibly make both sides "equal" just for the sake of "neutrality" is BIAS. This is not Red vs. Blue here. Both sides are NOT equal. The damage is NOT equal. Stop trying to make it look that way, you are obstructing reality. Thank you. Straightliner (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • None of the "yes" comments have addressed all the points raised by those in opposition to this picture. This leads me to believe most of the above people have not read what the opposition has said and is instead basing their positions only on what other supporters have said the opposition has said. Of course, shooting down a straw man argument is not particularly productive. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now. See my response below your vote. Wikipedia agrees with me, unless the editors from the page: "Child" have their own agendaAndrew's Concience (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you think my point is that babies aren't children? Forget it, Andrew. Seriously, just don't bother. I am just shocked by the all-around inability or unwillingness expressed by many supporters of this image to comprehend and respond to statements by the other side. Really, don't attempt to respond any further; you've already shown that you can't. -- tariqabjotu 05:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. And I’m sure ad hominem won’t do much good, either. Sorry, but I answered directly to the question, which was, “Should the picture be posted?” That’s what I was concerned with and what I answered to, within reason. The picture can be posted by its own merits, regardless of the opposing view. It clearly documents an important event that has occurred, and in this case, an event which is representative on a wide scale. There is nothing false or misleading about a picture that shows a dead Palestinian child, which no doubt represents many Palestinian children who have died in this massacre. That is a valid representation.

As for other concerns:

1) The picture acts as propaganda? False. Connections between the viewer and pictures are being ASSUMED by this party. Propaganda is deliberate.

2) Picture arouses shock value and sympathy? Please do a favor and browse over “The Holocaust” article, the “My Lai Massacre” article, and the “Rape Of Nanjing” article. How come I see pictures of dead people in there? How come I don’t see pictures of dead people in here? I'm not too low to stoop to an equalizing argument so I'll provide another reason why this argument is faulty: "Shock value" and "Sympathy" are relative by degree. What may seem shocking to someone may seem mild to me. We cannot judge by this standard. Invalid.

3) This argument will no doubt lead into “The Israeli-Gaza Conflict is not a massacre" argument. False. Massacre is defined as “To kill a large number of people indiscriminately; slaughter: the savage and excessive killing of many people” (Google). Now let’s look at the stats. 13 Israeli dead. 1,300 Palestinians dead. Ratio of death is 1 Israeli to 100 Palestinian dead. Killings have been indiscriminate. Civilians have died. This a massacre. Period.

There are just countless arguments that easily show the double standards the Israeli-Gaza article is being held by. Every opposing view is violated by several other Wikipedia articles. There are shocking pictures on Wikipedia. There are pictures of dead, severely tortured and killed people on Wikipedia. Yet, when it comes to pictures of dead people in Gaza, we are forced to censor or not post it because "balance has not been achieved." The problem is once again, this mistaken idea of balance. Balance is not "both sides are equally good and bad;" balance is portraying the event fairly, without any deliberate readjustment to bring the IDF or Palestinians to a positive light. This is what the opposing view is guilty of when they deny a picture of a dead Palestinian child - in a conflict where 100 Palestinian have died for each Israeli - including and not limited to - children, women and civilians. The right to fair representation is denied.

If someone makes the claim "Picture A should not be posted because its equivalent, Picture B, does not exist," there is something definitely fishy with that statement.

Do what you want. I'm done here. Straightliner (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• YES Too many of the reasons against are emotionally based, the morality of this picture is easily argued either way as evidenced in this very talk page. However with the madia ban and the limited availiability of pictures that notably reflect the weight of the civillian casualities there is really no better photo at this time. If we were so stringent here this article would be filled with vague over the border shots of smoke trails and distantly flaming buildings. If at a latter dat we find a more tastefull picture I would be happy to review my stance here.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes the image represents civilian casualties in the conflict. Also, I don't believe that in a war where the casualty ratio is 100:1 we should somehow balance the casualty image to 50-50. JVent (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No

We are not here to educate the reader about how bad war is. There are horrible tragedies all over the place, but it's not our place to stick graphic evidence right in the reader's face, for any reason. It feels like it's there for shock-value and arousing sympathy. I'll admit that I am biased by nature in this conflict, but I do my best to push for neutrality, and as such, I would also object to posting of horrific pictures of injured/dead Israelis (which are harder to find anyway, since the Israeli culture does not approve of taking such pictures). Rabend (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings. However, I disagree with your first sentence. We are here to to educate the reader about the war, good or bad. I agree that the picture is graphic and I don't think there are too many people who could possible disagree with us on that point. I also understand that the picture could arouse feelings of shock and possibly sympathy for the Palestinian side of the conflict. In that sense, those who advocate its inclusion on this page (such as myself) could be accused of pushing Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Hamas propaganda (and this picture could definitely be used as propaganda). The flip side of that argument is that the result of removing this image aids the Israeli military's side of the conflict and subjects the User who removes the photograph to accusations of aiding an Israeli campaign to block the release of information from Gaza by restricting access by the International press (against an Israeli court order) or the manipulation of Internet data through a military Psy-ops campaign. (See a recent article in The Economist). If it were proved that someone was editing for either of those reasons, their edit should be reverted as a violation of [WP:POV|wikipedia's policy on Point of View]]. So what are we left with? A desire for neutrality in the article up against the desire for accuracy? The problem I have is that I don't know how to define neutrality in this conflict. Is Neutrality showing a picture of a Hamas rocket and a picture of Israeli Tank? A picture of a dead Israeli soldier and a dead Hamas fighter? A bombed Israeli schoolyard and a dead Palestinian child? I don't know. So what do I do? I do I edit this page? I just stick to policy. Wikipedia says we don't censor images. WP:CENSOR You say you object to posting horrific images. But that's not our policy. If it was, we wouldn't have an accurate portrayal of our human experience. We wouldn't have images like this and this because everyone hates those pictures. But maybe we wouldn't have pictures like this or this because they offend some people too. I hope we can reach a lasting consensus here. Now I have some important stuff to do. I have to go play with my 6 month old son. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• We are not here to educate the reader about how bad war is. - true, we are here to collect encyclopedic information on wars. However, if the reader comes out feeling that war is horrible, after the facts, unfiltered, are presented to them, it is their response, not ours.
• There are horrible tragedies all over the place, but it's not our place to stick graphic evidence right in the reader's face, for any reason. - we are not sticking then in their face. We are an encyclopedia that that doesn't censor. That means we present facts however disgusting, disturbing or insensible they might be. For example, in Ejaculation, we present a picture that many find offensive, and even pornographic. Yet we include it, because it is a neutral, verifiable, description of the topic: to not have the picture would be doing a great disservice to our work as encyclopedist.
• It feels like it's there for shock-value and arousing sympathy. - While it is natural that you might feel this way, and to a certain extent you might be correct in assuming that a reader might have such feelings - the inverse argument could be made: that those who want the picture removed are doing it without consideration to its inherent encyclopedic value, but because it arouses sympathy for their rivals. However, both are total failures to assume good faith. We have to include content based on the contents relevancy, due weight, and availability. This is probably the only available non-copy-vio picture we have of an actual dead person in Gaza. We need it to illustrate the human toll. The only valid argument for its replacement would be that sufficient alternatives exist, but faced with no alternatives, we must use what we have at hand - to not do so would be to hide facts in order to assuage some moral or ethical or political objection, the very definition of censorship.
• I'll admit that I am biased by nature in this conflict, but I do my best to push for neutrality, and as such, I would also object to posting of horrific pictures of injured/dead Israelis (which are harder to find anyway, since the Israeli culture does not approve of taking such pictures). - And I would not agree with your objection: pictures of dead and wounded Israelis are a significant and important addition to relevant articles. And again, while Israeli culture might object to this content, Wikipedia doesn't (that said, maybe some sort of Israeli culture, because I have seen images in both Ynet and Haaretz of dead/wounded people in the past). I wish we had more pictures of casualties (dead and wounded) in all conflict articles: a picture is worth a thousand words, and keeping dry statics doesn't really convey the meaning, the facts of being dead and wounded.--Cerejota (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No! A picture is not worth a 1000 words! (the exclamation marks do not convey my yelling.. they're just for emphasis.) Not in an encyclopedia. This is precisely my point. You cannot convey the context or the specifics of an incident with a picture. The reader just creates a story in his mind according to the emotions it arouses in him. He is much more likely to do that with just a glimpse of a horrific picture, than thru actually reading the facts. We're giving him a shortcut which may lead to a wrong destination. Rabend (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me first state that I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, so if I present an opinion that violates a policy that I am not aware or is in contravention of some rule, please forgive me. Several individuals have invoked the wikipedia policy of WP:CENSOR as justification for including the picture in the article. However, the same page states that:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

I would not be surprised if most people reading this article were to find the dead baby image highly offensive. Given the litany of news sources available I think it would be likely that a less offensive alternative could be found. Cider86 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• No On the censorship issue, Cider86 is right on. Agree with Cerejota we are not here to educate on the evils of war, only to document the facts. Further, I am less than certain this picture is about what it claims to be about. In the 2006 Lebanon war we had all sorts of pictures from reliable news sources (such as Reuters) that were demonstrated to have been doctored and/or staged. Already France 2 has had to apologize for putting up false accusatory (anti-Israeli) footage. Will Al-Jaz be more reliable/less biased than France 2 or Reuters? Finally on the issue of balance, any article which puts up a half dozen pictures of the carnage of only one side in a conflict will be (rightly) accused being unencylopedia, or worse -- of spreading propaganda for that side. Better no pictures at all than only one-sided pictures of carnage. And yes, the picture is "offensive, profane and obscene" by many standards and their insertion would actually render the article less informative, rather than more. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)(signed later)

For people's reference, the above comment was made by User:Tundrabuggy. [16].--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You claim that including the picture would be propaganda? Why wouldn't censoring it be propaganda? It would be removed to show Israel in a better light. And the picture. There is nothing that indicates the picture to be a fake, I've seen pictures of the baby from different image sources one in that video posted somewhere her, one with a man holding it outside to show people and this. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the picture would make the page less informative.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should look at the Muhammad images controversy, over a billion people find that image offensive, but it was decided, and I think rightly decided, that their offense is not grounds to remove the image. Nableezy (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't entirely relevant to the discussion here, but I'd like you to drop the "over a billion people find that image offensive" bit; Muslims are not a monolith. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is why I left out 500 million from that. And it is relevant because some have made the argument that because it is objectionable it should be removed. I am not comparing the images, but that argument has been made before and failed. I am not saying you are making that argument, but some certainly have. Nableezy (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a critical difference between the Muhammad images controversy article and the image in discussion here. In the Muhammed images controversy article, it dealt with a very specific group of cartoons that caused offence. There would, of course, be no possible alternative to these images since the article deals specifically with that singular group of cartoons and removal of that image causes the article to be significantly less informative. The situation here is different. This article is about the war in gaza. The image is not central to the war in gaza. Its removal or substitution with a less offensive alternative does not detract from the article's ability to inform. Therefore it should be removed or replaced, in accordance with the last section of wikipedia's censorship policy. Cider86 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not talking about the cartoons, about the inclusion of an image of Muhammad preaching in the Muhammad page. Nableezy (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this image very distressing. Including it is fine, but could the page display a warning at the top notifying us of the objectional content? It's only fair. Prylon (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP doesnt do that either, as there is a general disclaimer that covers all these issues for all WP articles. Nableezy (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage people to look at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for how these issues have already been dealt with, the discussion there is focused on the images of Muhammad, but it does go into more general issues. Specifically the last part: Q8 Isn't censorship already employed on Wikipedia? Nableezy (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's unsatisfactory. I very much appreciate the uncensored nature of WP but this is maddening. I don't think the comparison to Muhammad is justified as persons from all races/religions may be upset by this. Prylon (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced WP editor but I feel that as a user, who has a strong stomach for these things normally, my view does count. My reaction to this image was one which questioned the bias of WP for using such strong imagery. As this page notes, the conflict has diverse opinions. These diverse opinions do not apply as much to dog faeces or the Holocaust. Prylon (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your view absolutely counts. I wasn't really comparing the images, but rather the rationale for trying to exclude them. The reason that these images are distasteful should be thrown out with prejudice as it is truly an attempt to censor. There are certainly other arguments for not including them, but one that centers on whether or not these are distasteful or objectionable should not be considered. Nableezy (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Prylon, I could say that people from all races and ethnic backgrounds may find images and videos at penis, anus and ejaculation offensive. That doesn't mean they should be removed.VR _talk 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Prylon, that's not a valid point. Objectionableness (which varies in concept from culture to culture), on its own, is not a reason for removal. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• No obviously. I have failed to see a single supporter of this image address my point. Instead, they have opted to throw around buzzwords like "censorship" and generalize this to an image of just a typical Palestinian casualty, or just a typical Palestinian child killed in the conflict. Alternatively, we have had others claim that if we start categorizing this, we'd be here until eternity. Look -- there is nothing unusual or "faulty" about discerning between a baby, a child capable of fleeing, an adult woman, an adult man, and the elderly (due to degrees of defenselessness); this is done multiple times throughout the article. This is a picture of a dead baby in an article in which dead babies hardly get a mention, for a conflict in which an unknown, but in no way presumably high, number of babies have been killed. Please; let's cut the crap. Quit averting the issue to something easier to refute. -- tariqabjotu 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you would be fine with this picture if it was a ten year old girl and not an infant? That doesn't make sense to me. An infant and a child are one and the same in my mind. Both are protected by the same laws and have the same status as civillians. Your own personal view is that they are different but you say that without anything but your own personal opinion to state this. If you provide a picture that is more suited to softer sensibilities you would have my vote sir. This picture is fully useable under wikipedia's policies and there are no other pictures to take it's place. I would rather have a perhaps harsh representation than no representation at all. If you find any part of this message offensive to you at all I appologise it was not my intent to confront you, but to discuss with you as you have asked the issue at hand,Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally please refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child . "A child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority." Thankyou Andrew's Concience (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot, Andrew. I know what a child is. -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you understand me correctly. There is, in fact, a picture of girl we have available (see File:DeadGazagirlday14.JPG and File:DeadGazagirlcloseday14.JPG). I think those pictures adequately, and more accurately, depict a typical Palestinian casualty, considering the subject is in a more representative age range.

An infant and a child are one and the same in my mind. Both are protected by the same laws and have the same status as civillians. Uh... well, so do adult civilians. Now I bet you're going to say infants and adult civilians are one and the same in your mind. Ridiculous. As I said below to Cdog, I'm not going to waste even more time educating people about the obvious. Can't see the difference between a baby and an older child? Okay, fine; keep the blinders on. I don't need to convince people the sky is blue; I don't need to convince people that there are fundamental differences between a baby and a (more grown) child. This isn't my "personal opinion"; this is just basic observation. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I've made this point before and no one has addressed it properly. I'll make it again only try to be more clear. I shall repeat the last line of wikipedia's own censorship policy:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

• Is the image of the dead baby offensive, profane, or obscene to the typical Wikipedia reader? Yes!
• Would the image's omission cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate? No!
• Are more suitable alternatives available? Yes!

Therefore according to wikipedia's own censorship policy, the image should be removed. The comparison to articles for penis and others is not fair. In an article such as that, a picture of the penis is quite clearly required since omission of that picture would significantly detriment the quality of the article. I this case, removal of the dead baby picture would not. Each response to my point that I've had so far has been the generic "WP doesn't censor" which, if you look at the policy, is actually not quite correct in situations such as this. Fact is, the dead baby picture shouldn't be in the article. Just my two cents. Cider86 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate to include any pictures of those who have died during this war? Do you not think doing so would be informative or relevant? How is this image not as "suitable" as alternatives?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not object to pictures of dead people in the article generally. However, due to the very young age of the victim, the probable excruciating manner of death and the extreme physical grotesqueness of the image, I feel that (only in my honest opinion) this picture is orders of magnitude more offensive even than pictures of other dead individuals. Its much worse even than anything in the Holocaust article. A less offensive, more suitable alternative should be sought. Cider86 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there still debate, we debated this to death. The vote should should resolve this. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We cannot declare this debate dead until someone addresses my point. You all are making the beginning and the end of this issue about "censorship" because that's easy to refute. I presented an additional point, and I'd like someone to at least acknowledge it. If this discussion simmers down, I'll simply create a new section. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I previously attempted to respond to your point about babies not being representative of children here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sure; I'll play. Obviously, babies are a subset of children. But the distinction, as suggested in my 2:08 (UTC) comment (and others), between babies and other children -- i.e. those who are capable of fleeing -- is important. It was a distinction that used to be made in the article twice (including in the caption), although, interestingly, both have been removed. It's a distinction made in the title of this section "Should the picture of the dead baby...", in much of the discussion where people specifically talk about a dead baby rather than just a dead child, and in the image's file name. But, of course, this point -- and my point in general -- are not in any way refuted in your opening statement of this section. It's all about censorship. It's still about children, as you refuse to acknowledge the obvious distinction (apparently to serve your point). Your opening comment is simply written in a manner that just begs people to avoid debating my point. And, unsurprisingly, that's what everyone did -- ignore it, to your benefit. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you. You think that the ability of children to flee has some bearing on whether we should post their picture on the page? That's the first time I've seen that argument. I have no problem with you re-labeling the picture,"Dead Palestinian Child". To me, the reason the picture of a dead child (or baby) is important and relevant to this article is that children (including babies) are non-combatants. Their deaths are indications of the way the war has been conducted. Maybe you can say a little more explicitly what distinction my opening point begged people to ignore. I'm afraid I must have missed it myself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only person to hear that argument for the first time. Honestly, I don't know what the whole post is about. When I posted a picture of men slaughtered by Israelis, I was told to look for a photo of the "real victims" "the children and women" "one without blood" "one that is free to use." With a flickr search, this was first one I found and it met all the conditions, very rare and a coincidence.I don't know what the conditions are now, I don't understand what tariqabhotu is arguing. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you're just misunderstanding me? Oh really? You're only three days late to come to that revelation. If you didn't get that from my initial statement (and, as I stated earlier, it was obvious you understood zero there), you should have at least got it when I said We're choosing to illustrate Palestinian deaths by depicting the most defenseless human being possible. two days ago. Cdog, let me ask you: why do you think we in the article, and the general public in the media, frequently differentiate between men, women, and children? Why are juveniles given lighter sentences than adults who have committed the same crimes? Why are civilians differentiated from militants? Honestly, I'd love to know, because the whole time here you have been blurring distinctions to support your point. I'm not making this up; there is general consensus in the real world ("high vulnerability", "defenseless civilian populations", "most vulnerable and defenseless", "defenseless against abuses") that these distinctions have to do with the inability of a certain segment of a population to defend and save itself (e.g. by shooting back, by taking cover, etc.)

So, let me say again -- because both you and Falastine have been too busy yelling censorship over and over to comprehend what I have said already -- Why do you feel it is necessary to depict Palestinian casualties with a picture of the most defenseless human being possible? Why do you choose to include a picture that represents an unknown, but in no way presumably high, number of the Palestinian casualties?. Again; let's cut the crap. There is a difference between a baby and an older child, and I'm not going to continue wasting my time trying to drill into your head the obvious because you are unwilling or incapable of responding to this point. -- tariqabjotu 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insult me. It makes talking to you much, much harder.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're insulted??? By what? -- tariqabjotu 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see now that circumstances have changed because other pictures of Palestinian casualties have become available. Perhaps this debate should be expanded to the question: "If the picture is to be replaced, what picture should replace it?"--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a radical change, but... okay. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, because we have no way of knowing that the baby has anything to do with this conflict, or even that it is a baby at all, and we have good reason to question any claims made about the image, namely: this is a highly emotive image in a conflict where both sides and their allies are using images to garner sympathy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes we do, its been reported by different sources, wiyouth different pictures of it... Again can't come and claim the pictures are faked unles you have some proof to undermine the sources (which can be found in the sections this image has been discussed in) — CHANDLER^#10 — 16:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some of your concerns, Jalepenos, have been addressed below at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Is_source_of_dead_baby_photo_a_reliable_source.3F.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I said we have no way of knowing the image is related to the conflict, since the photo has not been vouched for by a reliable source, as defined by WP policy, plain and simple. I wasn't even talking about the possibility that the photo is doctored (although that's also a concern; in the 2006 Lebanon war reliable sources vouched for photos later proven to be doctored, but there's nothing we can do about that kind of thing), rather the possibility that the photo is not related to this conflict or that it is not a photo of a real baby. And my concerns were not addressed at all in the discussion below. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Cider86's reasoning above is by itself a decisive argument not to include the photo, independent of my arguments and others'. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to believe that this baby was killed during the 'conflict'. With over 400 children dead including babies, why would anyone need to have to lie? Is it impossible for a person killed in an explosion to look like this? There are probably dozens of bodies like this from the 22 days of hell in Gaza. Is this the most graphic? No, to me a picture of "five-month-old baby 'whose whole brain was outside his body' is more graphic [17]. I provided a reference to verify that this picture is indeed related to the "conflict" that should be enough.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your "reference" does not speak of this photo, nor does it speak of a baby that could possibly be the one in the photo. It is not "hard for me to believe" that the photo is what it is claimed to be, but it is easy for me to believe that it is not what it is claimed to be, for the reasons I mentioned above. The 2006 Lebanon War had even more casualties than this conflict, and yet people felt a need to fake photos. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you waiting for a source to say that the baby in the photo is the same one in the video? Did you even watch video where the baby is clearly there with paramedics giving an explanation? Do you realize that you are among the few that says this reference doesn't verify the link between the photo and the attack on Zeitoun? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the link that I am referring to is in the caption not the one I posted in the above response. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I indeed thought you were talking about the reference in your response immediately above. I just watched the video, which settled for me any reasonable doubt that the photo was indeed taken in relation to this conflict. But I still have the same doubt as before whether the burnt figure is actually a baby, or just a doll, since it's just as easy to take a video of a burnt doll as to photograph it. By the way, although I'm happy to continue this conversation, I want to reiterate - so as not to waste your time - that even if you convince me that the photo is legit (and you may well do so), I will still object to its inclusion based on Cider86's reasoning, unless, of course, you or someone else refutes that reasoning. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. Although we are not censored, we aren't a tabloid or a shock website either. The image's shock value and sensationalist nature distracts from the actual article in a manner that far outweighs its documentary benefit. We don't want an arms race in war articles, in which each side tries to get as gruesome an image as possible into our articles.  Sandstein  15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly comparable to the goatse phenomenon or such. This talk page is getting rather hard to follow with heavily entrenched positions on both sides voicing their opinion. Just one small comment before I retire for you to ponder: if the image would depict an Israeli baby, would those who want to remove it be just as vocal about it? 88.148.219.153 (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah... the typical they-must-be-biased card. The answer is yes, but thanks for playing. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the baby's parents? Do we have to exploit their grief? Prylon (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. If you really want to, you can get a dead-baby pic in every war. That doesn't mean we have to. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I am not a contributor to wikipedia just like the other 99% of it's readership and I think that is why my post counts. There is no need for this picture. PERIOD. This is a war, people die in wars, civilians die in wars, its a sad truth but the average Joe who comes to this page to learn about what is going on in the world does not need to see a deep-fried-baby. This picture just screams AGENDA. If it was an Israeli baby, you would have a million people jumping on this page right now screaming "zionist agenda!" In such a hostile, volitile situation such as this Wikipedia needs to remain as neutral and objective as possible. If you notice, there are no other wars that have images like this. There is not a genocide, where a specific group of people are being targeted for a mass elimination. Then and only then is it okay to post an image like this, though I still feel the shock value is too much; there aren't even images like this on Darfur's page. No one targeted this baby, it was just a sad reality of war. Please take it off and save it for rotten.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewskee (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Commment User:Cdogsimmons brought the issue of the photograph(s) up at the Administrators Notice Board here: [18] I urge you all to read it. Here's one admin's take on the issue (edited out extraneous material): "Here's my take:

• Whether the image should be on the page is a question for community consensus, as with any other content dispute.
• Your message here [28] suggests that you are thinking that everything is ok provided there is no specific policy. This is incorrect: the policies constrain consensus (editors can't ignore WP:NPOV or WP:BLP even if there is a consensus to do so), but the consensus is free to be more restrictive.
• The reference to WP:UNDUE does seem appropriate to me. Children have been injured and killed on both sides of this conflict; it gives undue weight to post an emotionally inflammatory photograph of a dead Palestinian child, as if there have not also been dead Israeli children.
• ... It is not censorship for the consensus of editors to agree on what an article should say, and remove text or images that you think should be there. .....Tb (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

he went on to say: "Instead of trying to figure out only how to get what you want, see if you can figure out how to give everyone what they want. Find some pictures of devastation of lives by rocket attack, and put both up to show the devastation caused by the conflict. In other words, address the NPOV concerns that others have expressed, rather than trying to defeat or disprove them. In that way, you will only make the encyclopedia better. You do not seem to have yet gotten the point that there was nothing "against policy" about removing the photo. There is no policy that requires all material to be kept. Tb (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) and "But the other policies, including those against needlessly inflammator material, remain. " and in fact I just removed three of the pictures on the front page as "needlessly inflammatory" and WP:UNDUE. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think if you check the lists of casualties you'll find that no Israeli children have been killed in the 2008-9 Israel-Gaza conflict. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. We certainly can include it, if we need to in order to support our coverage of the subject material. And saying "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete. But the question is: should we? Does this help the viewer understand the material covered here? And, we have a dilemma. I'd like to point out that when it was Christian Serbian children falling victim to Muslim-supported NATO weapons at the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article, we don't even have one picture of a civilian death. And over 500 people died in that! You can see the same thing in many other (but certainly not all) military articles. And that's for a good reason.

I was debating this in my head for a while, but reading [the adminstrator's comments sort of changed my mind. What we are doing in this page is sensationalistic. It is grotesque. It is for shock value and pure shock value only. It is not for illustrating the information of the article. We are including this picture because we want to generate a gut effect in the viewer's mind. And that reaction is an anti-Israeli one. We are, in a real sense, moralizing here. We are posting something desgined to trigger a specific response in the reader's mind, the same way (in a more mundane example) putting this picture in the article for Nintendo triggers a subconsious viewer response. And that is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• No per Sandstein. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

I refuse to take part in this vote. For demographic reasons it's fatally flawed anyway. The arguments put forward to remove this image are irrational, parochial, arbitrary and pose a threat to Wikipedia as a neutral, global encyclopedia in my view. For example, Cider86 "Is the image of the dead baby offensive, profane, or obscene to the typical Wikipedia reader? Yes!". How would you know that ? This kind of thinking is dangerous stuff for an encyclopedia. It's en-Wiki, not Communist Party of China-Wiki.

• All arguments based on the potential distress caused by a dead baby image are not even worth taking seriously. Furthermore, why is a dead baby image more distressing that a dead old person image ? Where are these value judgments coming from ? Your culture. Do they apply globally ? No, they don't.
• All arguments based on the defencelessness of victims are frankly ludicrous. The degree of difference in defensivelessness between different Palestinians is insignificantly small given the firepower of the IDF and the level of destruction in the Gaza Strip.
• All arguments based on statistics e.g. dead baby is atypical/unrepresentative use arbitrary categorisation of victims. Somehow we are meant to simply accept that a baby, a 5 year old and a teenager are in different categories. A child is a child, children died, this is a picture of one of them. And by the way, why just pick age as the thing to fight about representative sampling ? Why not gender, shoesize, educational level, income, length of hair. It's arbitrary and because it's arbitrary it's impossible to have a sensible argument about it.
• Almost all arguments seem to have an implicit assumption of bad faith/political motivations. Why is that ? I personally see no point in voting when there is already an assumption of bad faith. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are free to abstain, but discussion trumps votes, so I can't just let you show up and then leave. So, I'd like to address a couple of your points: The reason age (and gender too, which I'll address in a moment) is important, rather than shoe size, educational level, income, length of hair, or any other metric that you'd like add to your slippery slope is because there is a correlation between age (and some would argue gender as well) and the ability to defend oneself. And while, judging by your second point, you may think arguments based on defenselessness are "ludicrous", your opinion on that is rather meaningless to me compared to those opinions raised in the links I provided in response to Cdog. That's among the reasons why the distinction between militant and civilian is important and why the number of women and children is noted as well. It has to do with defenselessness. Not important to you, perhaps, but that's what it's about. Your second and third points are intentionally interconnected, and, thus, it doesn't make sense to debate them separately as you did.

Still, as with Cdog, this will be the final time I explain this to you. If you are unwilling to see my point and provide a counterpoint to that, this discussion will end up nowhere anyway; no reason to continue farther down the path to nowhere. -- tariqabjotu 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tariq, remind me of your point (I'm not being sarcastic, I thought I'd addressed it). I thought it was centered on degree of defencelessness and atypical sampling. I've addressed and rejected them as without merit. There is a correlation between risk of injury and age obviously. That's why there are lot's of dead children and that is a category of relevance to the article, children. This is an image of a child. So the discussion should be structured around whether it is appropriate to include this image of a Palestinian child. That would be reasonable. An adult civilian or adult militant or child civilian have approximately the same ability to defend themselves against state of the art air power. Any difference is vanishingly small. Perhaps the degree of defencelessness should be based on leg length, running speed, weight i.e. ease of carrying. I'm sorry Tariq but I'm trying to approach this issue in a dispassionate way and constrain arguments to issues that make sense in a clear rational way just like we were arguing about what type of car image we should include in an article about cars. I think taking that cold, callous approach is better for the article and would help editors. The reason I want to abstain is because there has been a failure of reason here. It's as simple as that for me. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

..and if my argument about the degrees of defencelessness is unclear perhaps an example will help. In my garden there is a very large, highly distributed colony of asian weaver ants. The number of individuals I estimate to be somewhere in the order of 1 million workers, pretty similar to Gaza. The workers are dimorphic i.e. they come in 2 distinct sizes, minor (5mm) and major (10mm) with virtually no intermediate forms. What is the difference in the degree of defencelessness of minor and major workers if I, a giant primate attack them with advanced chemical weapons ? Is it a significant difference or an insignificant difference ? (I don't do that by the way). This is why arguments about defencelessness just don't make any sense to me when we are talking about the IDF offensive in the Gaza Strip. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument about the degree of defenselessness is absolutely ridiculous especially with this context, thanks for pointing that out. The baby was killed along with others including adult men and women. (read about the Zeitoun attack) The adult is just as defenseless as the baby s/he is holding with the type of firepower used and with no warning or expectation. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To Falastine and Sean: yes, but people are going to automatically see a baby and have some response such as poor baby. This is a natural response irrelevant of the military onslaught; babies are seen as the most defenseless, innocent members of society. I don't know how I can say this any other way, without eliciting these bizarre, irrelevant analogies. We are illustrating dead people by using an image of a type of person -- i.e. a baby -- that is likely to trigger the most sympathetic response, even though this baby is not representative of a large segment of those killed. As Squack said above, we are not using the image to illustrate content in the article (because dead babies are such a small segment of the fatalities), but rather to elicit a response sympathetic toward the Palestinians. While I have no problem with people being sympathetic toward the Palestinians, they should be so because of the facts and accurate representations, not because we show them the most extreme examples of casualties. But, as I said earlier, there's no point wasting my time on this. You're not going to change your mind; I'm not going to change mine. (To Falastine mostly now) You're never going to respond to my point because you'll come up with some alternative, bizarre, and, ultimately, inaccurate reading of it. Or, you'll be in denial that there is a difference between a baby and an older child because it doesn't serve your point. -- tariqabjotu 12:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you voting for abstain when you have commented ^ there and elsewhere to keep the image. The Squicks (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason I see no point in trying to have a rational argument with someone in the Taleban about whether listening to music is consistent with Islam. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns, all four of them. Personally, I see the whole crux of this debate as the question: "Does including this image help the viewer understand the subject material of the article in a way that is NPOV?" I believe that answer to that is no. So, I must vote 'no'. The Squicks (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you assume good faith there is no POV issue. Wikipedia editors are not smart enough to be able to know what thoughts/reactions may or may not be triggered in someone in a given culture with a given set of political/moral/religious POVs by viewing an image nor should they be concerned with such matters. If you had said "Does including this image help the viewer understand the subject material of the article" and then voted "No" I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. There are all sorts of rational, dispassionate, culturally neutral arguments you could put forward to support that view and people could have a sensible discussion about it. For example, I would argue that an image that shows a person in the context of where the injury took place is better than one that doesn't i.e. if a child died when a building was bombed then a picture showing the child in that building is better than one taken in the hospital. To me that is the kind of discussion we should be having when more images are available. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

---- STATUS ----

It seems that there is too much of a non-consensus regarding this photo, that for now we cannot include it. Rabend (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, your conclusion is not shared. More editors are in favor of including the images of dead victims. However, noting that polling is not a substitute for discussion, let's look at the reasoning instead. Those editors asserting that images are are "offensive" might consider that as there no censorship here, many images will be likely be offensive to some people. Further, before pictures started coming out of Gaza, there were photos of Israeli casualties in the article. These pictures show what happened in this event, there is no dispute that fighter aircraft delivered ordnance to a densely populated area. Of course the documentation is grisly, but that is no reason to censor it. RomaC (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, a moral tale. Many years ago I had the great privilege of attending a Christmas Panto at a secure psychiatric facility performed by the patients. Despite the fact that the performers had a script and a clear set of objectives which the staff thought they understood, 2 things happened

• There was absolutely no consensus whatsoever with respect to the actual content of the performance when the curtain went up. It was almost chaos with random musical improvistions, bizarre monologues clearly not being addressed to the audience, strange dancing and all sorts of happy strangeness. During the interval one of the patients sat at my table eating cigarette butts out of the ashtray.
• It was the best Christmas Panto ever probably in the whole history of Christmas Pantos.

So, we still have a chance of making the best Wiki article ever. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorus bombs

I added to this article a statement regarding the IDF’s use of white-phosphorus bombs, and provided a source to support it. However, within 15 minutes 'Jalapenos do exist' removed it without discussion. Does anyone else agree that it is a very relevant issue within the current conflict, and should be mentioned in the article? Palestinian doctors are seeing a large number of civilians arriving at hospital with serious chemical burns, and an independent source (HRW) has supplied video footage of the bombs being deployed. Logicman1966 (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why he would. It is an important element and it is verifiable by many reliable news source. I will restore the section, and if he doesn't like it, he should be the one to take it the talk page. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is, since dumping phosphorous is legal. As well, wouldn't you rather have a lit battlefield where the militants can be targeted and the innocent civilians spared rather than an unlit battlefield where the IDF has no choice but to destroy everyone in the area? Regardless, I expanded the section and think that it should stay. The Squicks (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd rather that they be brutally scorched and physically scarred for the rest of their lives rather than for them to be put out of their misery. No, I rather that both things didn't occur. That loaded question is offensive. And the point is of this discussion is that the use of white phosphorus is one of controversy, thus it belongs in that section. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious if there are any sources claiming Israel is using WP as a weapon (like coalition use of 'shake and bake in Iraq' - which is probably illegal), and not just for smoke/illumination (clearly legit, I think)? The HRW note by Reuters even underscored that they had only seen it used for the latter purpose. kzm (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable, that's undeniable and this article is supposed to provide a comprehensive understanding of what is actually happening 'in theatre' to use that deeply offensive term. Furthermore, surveys show that 9 out of 10 parents would rather that lethal projectiles of any nature were not rained down on the streets where their children play so removing it seems weird. Okay, I just made that up but you get the point. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that phosphorous is legal too. I thought the issue was really about Dense inert metal explosive which really are pretty controversial and perhaps are not well understood in terms of their long term health implications. Anyway, I'll leave it to you guys. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)..I'm not saying they are being used by the way, I'm saying that injuries have been seen by a couple of medics which they say are consistent with that weapon being used etc etc..previous IDF activities..etc etc..and so on. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Logicman, I explained in my edit summary why I removed it. On that note, I recommend reading edit summaries of edits that interest you. To repeat: the issue was included in the section "Alleged violations of international law". I read the sources you provided, and in those sources there was no allegation of an international law violation, nor was there a refutation of such an allegation. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Happy editing.

Here is what B'tselem has to say about the legality of the use of white phosphorous: 'The Third Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, which relates to incendiary weapons, states that such weapons may only be used against military objects. When the military object is located within a civilian area, the use of phosphorous is absolutely prohibited.

Such as rockets?--Tomtom (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel has not signed the Protocol, but the rule it states is based on two customary principles of international law, which are binding on Israel. The first is the prohibition on using weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the second is the prohibition on using weapons which by their nature cause unnecessary suffering.

Neither has HAMAS or Hezbollah.--Tomtom (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of such a weapon in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip breaches these two principles, and violates Israel’s obligation to take every possible precaution to limit harm to civilians.' [19], so your contention that this use of phosphorus is legal is incorrect. It may only legally be used as a smoke screen and only against a military object outside of a civilian area. Nableezy (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As does the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel. Doesn't it?--Tomtom (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you put a bunch of unrelated crap in the middle of my post? Nableezy (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Btselem contradicting the International Red Cross with that statement? The Squicks (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No they are not, both groups say it is acceptable to use as a smoke screen in a non-civilian area, both also say that the use of it as a weapon in a civilian area is not acceptable. The ICRC is saying that they have not used it in this way, but they have not said that it is permissible to use as a weapon as B'Tselem is accusing them of doing. But yes, the ICRC has said that the IDF has not used it in this manner. I was just disputing the assertion that 'dumping phosphorous is legal' Nableezy (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And HRW has accused them of using it as a weapon in this illegal manner. Nableezy (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

HRW?--Tomtom (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, here is a link to BBC News that talks of the use of white phosphorous. It also mentions the UN allegations of illegal Israeli use of the stuff (in other words, it is a legal weapon, but they are using it against civilians, which is illegal). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm Someone reference that in the article. That constitutes an alleged war crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.50.218 (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can the use of white phosphorous be considered chemical warfare? Trent370 (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell is there hardly any mention of the white phosphorous and its potentially illegal usage in this article? I don't understand, as there are plenty of sources from the UN and news media talking about how the Israelis are using it in their bombs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.25.125 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be highlighted to a much greater extent. It is a highly notable aspect of this subject, and it is documented in numerous reliable sources. I believe it would be the first use of chemical weapons by a NATO country since Vietnam. Trent370 (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be the first use of chemical weapons by a NATO country since Vietnam. 2003 invasion of Iraq? The Squicks (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel is not a NATO member, and I dont think any chemical weapons were used by 'coalition' forces in Iraq, though I could be mistaken. Nableezy (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling WP munitions "chemical weapons" is a misuse of the term. A chemical weapon is one that uses the toxic properties of a given chemical as its main means of action. WP's action is not to poison, but to burn using a chemical reaction, it is an incendiary weapon.

People who die by exposure to WP do not die poisoned by its effects, they die because they get horribly burned (this shit will ignite body fat, making a candle out of anything living). They are very horrible in their effects, in particular because people die in a few minutes of horrible, unstoppable burning, and hence international law has moved to ban them.

But like depleted uranium, which is not a nuclear weapon, WP is not a chemical weapon, and those who allege this are wrong in their assumptions, like they are with DU.

That said, its use in this war is worrying, because it is clearly used in civilian areas, and not as parachute illumination/smoke charges, but air-burst incendiaries. Keep in mind, tho, that Israel is not a signatory of any treaty banning WP use, even on civilians, and that there is no general international law banning its use.--Cerejota (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the Times Online article, which says that white phosphorus burns at extremely high temperatures. No fire burns cool, but I don't think this is a particularly hot fire, how hot is it? The chemical consequences are severe, but I am asking about the heat. Jokem (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is not the temperature, but the nature of the fire. WP has a reaction where the oxygen is internally consumed, it burns underwater! So it is a pervasive burn, with little flames. Of course, other things ignited by it, like the felt wedges, or human fat, will burn with a flame.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Cerejota, not true. WP does not burn underwater, I believe you are thinking of magnesium. WP is dangerous because it will ignite in warm air, so it is almost impossible to put out. I don't think the Times online article is accurate.

Here check this link out where a long term military expert says "this is not weapon grade phosphorus but smoke screen phosphore and perfectly legal even for civilian use" and he links to a red cross report where the red cross agrees that this phosphor in every way is only used as a smoke screen. Military use just looks a lot different: [[20]] - please always take propaganda from both sides with a grain of salt (Pallywood and Jewtube are rarelly reliable sources) Crass Spektakel (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but so must opinions of military experts. WP is just a weapon, true, but even a combat knife has a deadly effect. I am a geek for this crap, but I never forget that ultimately these things ar emeant to kill. WP as a smokescreen is relatively harmless if used according to instructions, but if the shot is too low, and the wedges fall on you, you will die a human candle. The Russians did this extensively in Grozny (I think like 20-25% of the rounds they threw where "smoke" WP, a percentage so high that throws into question the need for screens; so it is not unheard of to use smoke rounds as low-level incendiaries.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am a long-term "Danger Room" subscriber (Find a comment from me here:[21]).--Cerejota (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote that you cited there is not on the website.

I must admit when I read White phosphorus was first used as a weapon by Fenian terrorists in the 19th century. I chuckled. We are such deviant little bastards, aren't we? The Squicks (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Unrepentant Fenian bastards are my favorite terrorists.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't the use of WP in civillian populated areas AT ALL. banned by the Geneva convention? Only as a marking or smoke screening device and never in situations where civillians could be exposed to it. That right there is a downright war crime by todays standards.210.215.75.3 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Section titled: "Iranian involvment"

As Iranian involvement is widely reported as an important feature of this conflict, please feel free to improve upon but not merely delete all related content as Pietru il-Boqli did [| here] and Tiamut did [| here].

Below is the content of the Iranian involvement section at the time of this post:

Iran is viewed by many observers to be a serious component of the "Battle of Gaza." [[22]] Hosni Mubarak warned that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states." [[23]] Saudi Arabia's [Shura Council] member Mohammed Abdallah Al Zulfa stated that "Iran is the big threat in today’s world, supporting all the terrorists from Hamas to Hezbollah to some other terrorists that we don’t know their names yet," and that "Iran destabilized the region by supporting all the illegal activities and activists such as Hamas." [[24]] "Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman reportedly told the Israelis that Egypt wouldn’t oppose a quick strike designed to bring down Hamas." Palestinian Authority chief Abu Mazen blames Hamas, which is largely an Iranian proxy, for the fighting."[[25]] Hamas "has drawn itself increasingly into Iran's orbit. Much of its imported weaponry, and the expertise with which it now produces and refines its own rockets, have been provided by Iran. Dozens of its commanders have been trained in Iran in recent years, coming home and disseminating that 'education' as Hamas has built an army in Gaza. And, increasingly too, Hamas has come to act in the service of Iran's aims," according to a Jerusalem Post analysis. [[26]]

Doright (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In the archived discussions, people decided that it was not good to start section on "Iranian involvement" or "US involvement" because it would never end. If you do insist on including this section, I will insist on a section on US arms supplies to Israel. US involvement is well-documented as a matter of official record and extends past some US/Israeli rhetoric and allegations that has yet to be confirmed by anyone. Tiamut^talk 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

POV Exclusion

Tiamut, please provide a link showing where "people decided" the article should NOT represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue and that WP:RS views of prominent academics regarding the Gaza conflict should be entirely excluded from this article. As cited above, for example, Dr. Michael Ledeen states in the published article: "Everyone in the Middle East knows that the serious component of the Battle of Gaza is all about Iran." My entire edit contribution is merely a summary of his article. All the material is his. I merely included the links to his references. Doright (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You need to read the archives, it is not our responsibility to bring you up to speed on all these issues and the discussions pertaining to them. Nableezy (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, that's right. However, it is your responsibility to not violate WP:POV policy. I suggest you read it. Since my point seems to have been lost on you. Let me make it clear. What I have identified above is a violation of Wikipedia policy. When I ask for a link it is not because I have not read the archives. It is because a resolution of a dispute can only be made in the context of the specifics evidence that you purport to have. Failure to provide it makes the assumption of good faith more difficult and leaves your argument as a nullity. For a clique of editors to decide on presenting only one POV and exclude the POVs of main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue is a violation of Wikipedia policy which should be corrected without further delay.Doright (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but not many people feel like going through the archives to provide you with the link. You can find it yourself, if after you have looked and it is not there, raise the question. But your comments on the lead page proved you did not read the archives. And I am still waiting for you to 'stand corrected' over there. Nableezy (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not addressed (here nor in the archives) the violation of WP:POV inherent in your decision to exclude the POVs of the main scholars, prominent academics and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. For example, the article frames the conflict according to only one point of view. It reads, "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, . . . " However, others have framed it as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power. Please read Dr Michael Ledeen's article that I cited above [[27]] also read the statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that frames the conflict as one with Iran's foundation for power. [[28]] Doright (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why dont you just read the thread directly below this. The decision was made by a collection of users in the past of not including either the US involvement as regards their support of Israel or the Iranian involvement as regards their support of Hamas. That decision is being revisited. I didn't really care either way, but if one goes in so does the other. For the reason of not creating a gigantic clusterf**k of this article, many users supported not including either. You want to push for its inclusion, many other users will push for the inclusion of the US section. And there are plenty of sources that say that this was really a political move on the part of Livni and others in Kadima, you want that in the article? So if you feel this way, bring it up down there, but for the last time stop asking other people to go through the archives for you. Nableezy (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your argument is a straw-man. Why don't you just read what I wrote above? Since you, after repeated requests, have failed to address the violation of Wikipedia policy identified above I will correct it myself. Doright (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Remedy for documented [WP:POV] violation

See talk section above titled "POV Exclusion" for background and references. Changing from: "The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, . . . " to: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, viewed by some as part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict and by others as part of a conflict with Iran's quest to establish itself as the leading regional power, [[29]] . . . " Doright (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You need consensus to add this, why do you not understand this? And you are talking about doing this to the lead? Nableezy (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And you think valid sources for this are an editorial by Michael Ledeen, a founding member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which is has as its stated aims "is threefold: to ensure a strong and effective U.S. national security policy; to educate American leaders on what it views as the vital strategic relationship between the United States and Israel; and to strengthen U.S. cooperation with democratic allies", or in other words an advocacy group, and the Israeli government? Do you really think that is NPOV. You are really raising POV question based on the opinions of the state of Israel and and editorial piece not being presented as fact? I can't believe I was actually taking this conversation seriously. Nableezy (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How is what he is doing any worse than taking the claims by B'Tselem and other groups like it purely at face value? (You haven't done that, but many many have on this page). The cognitive dissonance is stunning.

As I stated before, I would rather have neither the big Iranian conspiracy claims nor the big Jewish-American neo-con conspiracy claims in the article. I would like it if we didn't mention foriegn involvement at all, since it's clearly- as said before- clusterf--k waiting to happen. It would be like trying to add a section on whether or not size matters on the article human penis: there's no freaking way it could be mentioned in a neutral way since its embroiled in so much controversy. The Squicks (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot see the difference between a human rights group that is widely respected and a lobby I can't help you. Nableezy (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy and Squicks, here is the Jew's bio. That you don't like the Jew's affiliation is not relevant. He is a prominent academic, adviser to the US Government, and his views are representative of a significant POV. You are now willfully violating WP:POV by your repeated deletion of this POV from the article.

And, Squicks, sorry , but your preference does not trump WP:POV policy. Furthermore, your argument is at best a non sequitur. That you view Dr. Ledeen POV as a "Jewish-American neo-con conspiracy claim" only signals your own point of view and your attempt to rationalize the exclusion of other POVs demonstrates a complete failure to abide by Wikipedia policy of WP:POV. Here is the Jew's bio:

Dr. Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Dr Ledeen has also been a senior Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for many years. He is also a contributing editor at National Review Online. Previously, he served as a consultant to the United States National Security Council, the United States Department of State, and the United States Department of Defense. He has also served as a special adviser to the United States Secretary of State. He holds a Ph.D. in modern European history and philosophy from the University of Wisconsin, and has taught at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Rome.

He is author of more than 20 books, the most recent include: The War Against the Terror Masters; The Iranian Time Bomb; Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are As Timely and Important Today As Five Centuries Ago, Tocqueville on American Character: Why Tocqueville's Brilliant Exploration of the American Spirit Is As Vital and Important Today As It Was Nearly Two Hundred Years Ago; and, Freedom Betrayed: How America Led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War, and Walked Away. His forthcoming book (Spring, 2009, St. Martin's Press) is Accomplice to Evil; Iran and the War Against the West.

Dr. Ledeen regularly appears on Fox News, and on a variety of radio talk shows. He has been on PBS's NewsHour and CNN's Larry King Live, among others, and regularly contributes to the Wall Street Journal and to National Review Online. He has a blog on Pajamasmedia.com.

Doright (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So if I get a PhD to say that Israel is attempting to destroy the Arab people in to start WW3 and begin the apocalypse that should go in the lead? What is wrong with you? Nobody objected because he is Jewish, that is your own hyper-sensitivity talking. I object because his personal views do not belong in this article. That you happen to think that NPOV means prominently displaying your own POV is not our fault, but you are mistaken. You keep coming with these bs arguments about POV and are attempting to insert material from an editorial into the lead. This is dumb, I wasted enough time on this. If you want to add this get consensus. I am sure almost everybody will say that this does not belong, and in fact you would be violating NPOV if you do continue to add this bs. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I have cited you the relevant policy. I have shown you how your editing is in violation of policy and now you call it all "bs." The assumption of good faith does not require editors to endure an endless cycle of abuse from editors that refuse to follow policy. You claim I "keep coming with these bs arguments about POV," but never even attempt to show that the [WP:POV] does not apply. Merely calling my presentation "bs" is not an argument nor an indication of good faith. You, claim I would be violating NPOV if I add another POV to the article. However, you do not even attempt to show how that would be the case. You have made no argument supported by WP policy whatsoever, whereas I have. I believe your conduct will be properly viewed as disruptive and you may be subject to a suspension of your editing privileges on this article and related articles. Doright (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Nableezy (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian involvment cont.

BTW, all the references Doright mention are old references that are not related to the article anyway. Even the single 28 Decemember reference he cited mentions a pre-28-December quote. --Darwish07 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me say it again, every reference cited in that section; is either: a)Journalist opinion, b)News agencies analysis, or c)pre-war events and quotes. The section has summed up neatly all the kind of references that can not be used in our article.--Darwish07 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Congress Cheers Israeli War on Gaza
• Bush Ordered US to Abstain From Gaza Vote
• Rights Groups Condemn US Role in Gaza Conflict
• Rice: Hard for Israel to Avoid Killing Gaza Civilians
• US Abstention Stuns Security Council
• American Weaponry Facilitates Killings in Gaza
• British Link With Drone Aiding the Israeli War Effort
• US Says Arms Shipment to Israel Not Linked to Gaza

And here are articles about Iran:

• In Washington, All Roads Lead to Tehran
• Iran Bans Activists From Fighting Israel
• Tehran Opts for 'Moral Support' in Gaza War

The attempt to draw Iran into this slaughter is yet another indication that Richard Perle's 1996 "Clean Break" plan is being used as the script. The attack on the Gaza Strip is not an "intensification" of a conflict with Palestinians as the introduction suggests: It is a continuation of a conflict with the entire region. Here's the timeline:

• 1996: "Clean Break" hatched
• 2000: Neo-con PNAC calls for "new Pearl Harbor"
• 2001: PNAC gets its wish
• 2003: 9/11 used as pretext for destroying Iraq
• 2006: Israel destroys Lebanon
• 2007: Israel bombs Syrian installation
• 2008: Israel wipes out the Gaza Strip
• 2009: Israel gets U.S. to wipe out Iran and Syria

But, of course, we're supposed to pretend that all of these invasions exist in isolation. NonZionist (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, enough with the secret-evil-puppet-master-Zionist-moneybanker-scheme-to-conquer-the-world stuff. You have your own sandbox. Use it. Don't clog up article talk pages. The Squicks (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He has a valid point, that Iranian involvement in this conflict is negligible to US involvement. There are RS articles about shipments of arms immediately prior to the initial attack, along with RS detailing US denials that the two are related, as well as the boasts of Olmert that he convinced Bush to order the abstention of the UNSC resolution. And if the 'Iranian Involvement' section were to include allegations from the past about funding or other support, that would surely open up a 'US Involvement' to further detail past support of Israel. And I don't see the word Zionist anywhere anywhere in his post besides his username. I would say neither belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Iranian involvement is NULL compared to the US involvement. This Iranian section is totally based on quotes from the past and a couple of journalists opinions, thus if this section to be added, I have the rights to extract unbelievable facts from the academic paper "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". And no one will be able to attack it cause it's considered a reliable source. People want to play the that game? I think it's just better for everybody to stick to the war facts and not bring our own views on here.--Darwish07 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iranian involvement in NULL? Hardly. Just like Hizbollah (which is also a military organization that took its own people hostage in the name of religious(?) belligerence), Hamas is a militant organization that is heavily dependant on Iran. Anyone with access to intelligence information will tell you that. Media information, however, is a whole other story, the difference being that the US and Israel are western democracies, which by nature allow more access to info and as a result more can be discovered by reporters, while Hamas and Iran run dictatorships whose leaders are elected democratically. As such, there's pretty much no free info or room for journalistic investigation there, and if you publish the wrong kind of article, the Iranian governemnt will shut down your newspapar. So the fact that there are less reports about Iranian involvement do not necessarily weaken this statement, but rather reflects the amount of freedom that a reporter has. Rabend (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say Iran involvement = NULL for the sake of soapboxing, but I said that it's null "compared to the US involvement". It's not our job to assume what the situation of a country is, or bring opinions that's not reliably cited. As I said above, all the cited references are:

• Journalists opinions
• News agencies analysis
• pre-war events

which isn't accepted in Wikipedia. My reply is simple, if we're going to return back in time and dig in opinions and analysis for Iranian involvement, we can add a 300-page paragraph describing the US involvement alone. For the sake of avoiding useless and ugly debates, and to avoid digging in events pre-war, this section must be removed. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The place for details of support Iran might provide to Palestinian organisations belongs in the separate articles on those particular groups. The section on Iranian involvement in this current Gaza conflict should be deleted immediately. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The simplest approach is to not deal with who is supplying who in this article. Apart from anything else the volume of material supplied by the US and Iran are differemt by many orders of magnitude so it's simply absurd to just mention the Iranian supply chain. 125.27.13.215 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a section documenting the heavy U.S. involvement. The huge involvement by foreign powers turns the conflict into a global one. NonZionist (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I deleted the whole section. The whole article was sliding to utter nonsense, sorry. The references of both the Iranian and the US sections was of funny quality. --Darwish07 (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Iran vs. US involvement:

First, the United States government is heavily involved in supplying Israel. It has been since the Eisenhower Administration, although actual amounts of aid have varied from year-to-year. The U.S. has also heavily supplied numerous other countries, including Egypt. I oppose adding either a U.S. section or an Iran section, since both countries are in fact "interested spectators," although the different between U.S. Aid is that the United States has supplied weapons and supplies and money (the last two though private citizens and NGOs) and even a handful of U.S. Jewish (and fewer non-Jewish) volunteers and immigrants, while Iran has supplied both weapons, money and the Iranian equivalent of the Green Berets. (Namely, a few companies of trainers/elite militants) who provide aid and training to Hamas Forces, as well as proxy aid from the Syrian government. I feel that adding this section or a section like it, especially without a great depth of sources, is beyond the scope of the article and Iranian actions especially are going to be hard to verify. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Darwish, ty for the extra policing. V. Joe (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than simply discarding this important and well-sourced information, I have moved it to a new article: 2008-09_Israel–Gaza_Foreign_involvement. NonZionist (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if NPR or The Washington Institute for Near East Policy are considered RS, but they seem to have their facts straight. I assume a blog is not RS?--84.109.19.88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Though i strongly agree with there being a " Foreign involvement " page, i believe it should be in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict rather than having its own page. This is mainly because it is strongly relevant to the conflict, as both sides are obviously contributing to the crisis, for example iran suppling hamas with weapons whilst USA supply Israel with weapons. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2009 (GMT)

Is there then a consensus for moving the information from 2008-09_Israel–Gaza_Foreign_involvement back into the main article? Squicks and company are trying to get the subarticle deleted, while others are saying that the main article needs to be farmed out into subarticles. Kafka would love this! NonZionist (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUMMARY and WP:POVFORK, and see the difference between the two. --Cerejota (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Policemen, again

Listen people you can not deny the fact that the IDF considers Hamas policemen as terrorists and count them in their reports of the numbers of dead. So, in reality, when you put the number 138 beside the 400-650 number in the infobox you duplicate the numbers of dead. Their place is not beside the 400-650 number but in the notes section. I even went as far and stated that the 400-650 numbers is not for militants but for fighters as some people have a problem with puting the cops in the category of militants. If you want I can even change the name from fighters to combatants, but at the end of the day they don't belong in the main part of the infobox, because most of them, if not all, were Hamas operatives, or potential Hamas operatives, seeing as 40 who died were recruits. They are considered the enemy by the IDF and they included them as such in their estimate of 400-650 dead. So you can not put 138 beside that number, the best place for them is in the notes section. If oyu want, we can add in the notes section beside the 138 number that some regard them as civilians and not combatants. However, bare in mind that an estimate of 670 dead has been given by the Palestinians who gave the numb. 138, and of those some 520 have been identified as women, children, elderly, newsmen, soccer players and medical workers by the Palestinians. So what? You are going to tell me that of the remaining 150 dead 138 are policemen and there were only 12 regular male deaths. Fact, the Palestinians are not counting the cops as policemen and the IDF is counting them as Hamas operatives. End of FACT.BobaFett85 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Fipplet (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read what was mentioned in the sections above. Since reliable sources disagree about whether to consider Hamas' security forces as "non-combatants" under international law, we must list them seperately. I believe there is a consensus among editors to preserve that neutrality. The Squicks (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If the INFO box has as vague a surmise of 400-650 dead according to IDF calculations, that means the IDF's own calculations have a 33% margin of error, and the 250 may well include 135 policemen. The 135 figure for police killed is, by contrast, fairly specific. Under international law, police forces are combatants if the party attacked had given prior notification of their inclusion within the military. Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

HRW says that policemen are civilians unless they are engaged in hostilities, so I would say the presumption is that they are civlians "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes." [30] That Israel says they are militants can be presented, but if it is so should that line from HRW. Nableezy (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the user The Squicks, there should be a separate article on whether the census should count Gaza policemen as Hamas operatives, although again a policeman can also be a hamas operative. NeMiStIeRs (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (GNT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeMiStIeRs (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am talking about, user NeMiStIeRs just said it. The IDF counted the policemen as Hamas operatives when they stated the 400-650 number, thus when they stated that number they INCLUDED the policemen. There is no margine of error, THEY INCLUDED THEM IN THAT NUMBER. So when you separate them in the infobox it seems as the cops were separate fatalities from the those 400-650, while probably most of them were members of Hamas, and thus counted as such by the Israelis in their 400-650 number. Let's not kid ourselves gentlmen, we all know that most of the policemen are Hamas operatives. Also, that HRW talk about policemen are civilians until engaged in hostilities. Well, from that point of view they became combatants when they were attacked by the Israeli Air Force. The Israelis regarded them as an enemy. Thus, you proved my case for me. They are not civilians. Also, have you seen any reports of policemen being killed since that first day? No. That's because they all threw away their uniforms and changed into their Hamas militant uniforms to fight the Israelis. But, I see what the problem here is, so here is a consensus proposal, we count the 138 cops in those 400-650, and make a note of that in the notes section, but, and here is my proposal, we don't say Militants or Fighters in the infobox, but Armed Forces: 400-650. My reasoning, the Palestinians regard their militant groups as their Army, as well as their Police Force. In many countries their police forces are part of their armed forces and fight in their wars, example Iraq, policemen and soldiers die at the same rate in the same situations and are used for the same thing, to fight the war. Also, not all of these guys Hamas, there was a bunch of Islamic Jihad guys who got killed so we can not just say Hamas operatives: 400-650. So I think this is the best solution. The main problem here is all a matter of wording.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the infobox number can include the policemen, but there should be a note that policemen are counted. And no, the did not become combatants when they were attacked, they had to combatants to allow the attack. If Israel regarded them as their enemy and they had not been involved in any military activity, then Israel regarded civilians as their enemy. Read the HRW doc, it can explain better than me. I dont think we should say that they are combatants or civilians, but if the israeli count is including them it should be made clear that the count includes x policemen, with the note, soured to HRW, that 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' without making any proclamations that they were or were not combatants. But as far as me proving your point, I think you misunderstand what I said. I would argue that it was impossible for any of these men to engaged in hosilities as many were killed in the first attack, which was without warning. So how could they be involved in hostilities before the Israelis started bombing them? But that is my opinion, and obviously doesnt belong in the article. Nableezy (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes. is problematic. It also seems to be incorrect. If a Palestinian policeman provides direct material support to military people (say, he carries the missiles to the people who fire them), then he is arguably not a civilian even though- technically- it is true to say that he is not a "Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities". The Squicks (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the international law is wrong. The law is the law. I'm just saying that their interpretation of the law is in dispute. The Squicks (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See this story: Israeli Defence Forces spokesman Captain Benjamin Rutland told the BBC: "Our definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." and "The IDF says it has intelligence that members of the police force often "moonlight" with rocket squads, but has given no details about the specific sites or individuals targeted. However, campaign group Human Rights Watch (HRW) argues that even if police members do double as Hamas fighters, they can only be legally attacked when actually participating in military activities."

HRW is indeed a reliable source, but their interpretation of international law in this specific situation is not the only interpretation out there. The IDF interprets indirect military support classifying someone as a combatant. HRW disagrees. We cannot as Wikipedia editors simply assume that one interpretion is simply correct and that another is simply incorrect. That is just our opinions. The Squicks (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As the BBC reported, "Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - quoted by Israel, although not signed by it - says that for a site to be a legitimate military target it must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage"." HRW and the IDF agree with this. It's just that they disagree on its application. Frankly, Nableezy, don't you think that effective contribution is a can of worms? It's so vague. HRW says 'direct part in the facilities'; the IDF says 'indirect part'. I personally may be completely opposed to the Israeli strikes of police depots, but I can't say that my interpretation and my definition is the only one out there. The Squicks (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say we should include the Israeli allegation that these people were indeed 'involved with terrorism within Hamas' but we should not present it as fact. We don't have anybody reliable saying that these people were actually involved in any 'terrorist' activity. As such, I think we should give the Israeli rational for attack them, as well as the statement from HRW, which as I read it says that if they were providing material support then they are valid targets, if not then they are not. And yes I think it is vague, thought I dont see that as necessarily a bad thing. I am down with saying Israel has stated that these were valid military targets. But I would also want the position of HRW, which takes no position as to whether these policemen were combatants or not, that 'Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes.' Nableezy (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would qualify the HRW quote with an explicit citation. Nableezy (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rationale thru Israeli allegation that they were involved in terrorism is a good idea. Rabend (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also can you please include your sources in your debate and provide the link, as i was just reading your comments i have seen most of the things that you have commented on are true and the sources are correct how ever there a few things that can be seen as a opinion rather than fact. Also some quotes that have mentioned .... unfortunately i have not been able to find them on the internet, thanks --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

We don't have anybody reliable saying that these people were actually involved in any 'terrorist' activity. I cited The Los Angeles Times before. How is that not reliable?

Regardless, so I guess the article would say something like this:

Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions says that a site must "make an effective contribution to military action" and its destruction or neutralisation must also offer "a definite military advantage" for it to be a legitimate non-civilian target. The IDF has stated that, as policy, "[o]ur definition is that anyone who is involved with terrorism within Hamas is a valid target. This ranges from the strictly military institutions and includes the political institutions that provide the logistical funding and human resources for the terrorist arm." The IDF interprets the Conventions such that Hamas-related police officers are not civilians, referring to its intelligence that the officers support militants firing rockets. Human Rights Watch disagrees with the IDF's interpretation, saying "Under the laws of war, police and police stations are presumptively civilian unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes." B'Tselem also considers the officers to be civilians.

The Squicks (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, how ever i merely meant that some quotes weren't exactly quote they had been slightly doctored to fit the users opinion though again i did not mean to point towards you. I Apologise if any offense is caused. Although regarding your LA times comment, i think i must have missed the link as this edit section is so big i was skim reading it. --NeMiStIeRs (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (GMT)

Look if the IDF considers policemen to be combatants, then Hamas and its supporters argue that all Israelis over 18 are combatants since they have (technically) served in the army. It is my hope that such faulty logic is not repeated on wikipedia. Separating the policemen from both civilians and militants preserves neutrality, not taking either side.VR _talk 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well VR, in that case, if you want to separate them then you CAN NOT put the number 400-650 in the infobox, because the IDF counted all of the policemen in that number, you should remove 138 from 400-650. Go ahead, in that case I agree with you compleatly and will support you all the way. Put the policemen separately in the infobox, heck I'll put them for you, BUT in that case you CAN NOT put the number 400-650 in the infobox, because the readers will think that 400-650 is exclusivly the number of militants killed while separately from them 138 cops died, while in reality the 138 cops are among those 400-650 counted. And if you do that, then some readers might think that the IDF is claiming to have killed all those militants in addition to the cops and thus inflating their numbers of enemy combatants they killed for their propaganda purposes, and that is not neutral on your part. Also, the numbers would not add up and readers would be confused: 138 cops+670 civilians+400 to 650 militants is not equal to 1,100 people killed, but if we would count the cops as those militants and look at the lower number then we would get 670+400 (138 cops) then we would get 1,070 which is preaty much close to 1,100. I think my math just now actualy proves my point on the cops being counted as fighters by both the IDF AND the Palestinians themselves and not as civilians. Also, I heard today that the head of the Palestinian Interior Ministry was killed, that would mean he was a policeman in essence, the head of the police forces and we should count him as a civilian right? But, hey look at that, he was also one of the four main leaders of Hamas, who would have guessed. So, what to do know?BobaFett85 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) About the LA Times article, let us just examine that for a moment. The relevant sections, or at least what I think you are referring to, correct me if I am incorrect, but the relevant passage was this:

Hamas, the militant group that has controlled Gaza since mid-2007, has an estimated 20,000-strong security force composed of police; Protection and Security, a unit similar to the U.S. Secret Service; and Internal Security, an intelligence and interrogation squad with a rising reputation for brutality.
Many security force members moonlight with the Izzidin al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas' military wing, which continues to launch dozens of rockets and mortar shells each day at southern Israeli towns.

From my reading of that passage it does not follow that the police are necessarily involved with any rocket firs. It says 'many security force member moonlight . . .', but it defines security forces as much more than the police. So I personally dont think that this article can be used as evidence that police forces are necessarily involved with any 'terrorist' activities. I would, as I said above, have the 400-650 figure in the infobox with (includes police forces)* with the note from HRW. In the body of the article I would have the numbers the IDF cites, with the HRW comment, with the IDF claim that these people were involved in 'terrorist' activities. I personally think that this is reasonable, but then again I haven't been known to be all that reasonable. Nableezy (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of that passage it does not follow that the police are necessarily involved with any rocket firs. I think that, since English is not your first language, you are misunderstanding the term "moonlight":

From dictionary.com,

–verb (used without object) to work at an additional job after one's regular, full-time employment, as at night.

So, The Los Angeles Times states that Hamas police agents work at "an additional job" as part of their main employment by firing rockets. The Squicks (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S: Note that the LAT allegation is mentioned in the voice of the newspaper itself. He did not write "The Israelis have claimed that Hamas has ____"; he wrote "Hamas has _____". The reporter writes it as if it is a simple fact. The Squicks (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I said above, have the 400-650 figure in the infobox with (includes police forces)* with the note from HRW. That is not acceptable. If you mention the POV statements of one side, than you must mention the POV statements of the other side at the same time. Prominently putting the HRW side of the events first and then relegating the LAT/IDF side into way below that deep inside the body text of the article is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In this article from the LA Times from 2007: Abbas bans Hamas police force the police are referred to as a paramilitary force. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This article from Australia [31] referring to today's hit on senior Hamas leader Said Siam  :Siam's police force was grudgingly respected for ending years of lawlessness in the territory...... However, human rights groups in Gaza also accused Siam's interior ministry of practicing torture and illegal detention to cower rivals. The business about ending years of lawlessness does not seem to correlate with this report [32] from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights which refers to the "security chaos" in the territories(esp Gaza). Note the clear accusation that the militants are making and firing rockets in civilian areas. Note the high number of women and children killed and injured by Palestinians in their zeal to kill Israelis. If the police were "respected for ending years of lawlessness," how could so much of this report have even happened? It makes the "Wild West" look good. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And this article from the UK Telegraph[33] : "Hamas fighters now a well-organised force. Hamas has up to 20,000 men divided between its armed wing, known as the Izzedine Al-Qassam Brigades, and paramilitary police, commonly known as Executive Force." Also:Hamas planning to move militia in bid to undermine Fatah - planning to move its 3000-strong paramilitary force into Gaza police stations in an imminent move which threatens to undermine the rival Fatah ... Clearly there are numerous RS that refer to the Gaza police as essentially a paramilitary group. That means they are in fact fighters, very much involved with fighting this war for Hamas against Israel. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to forget that Israel claimed to launch strikes on Hamas rocket launching men. In fact, prior to December 27, the offense Hamas had committed against Israel was to launch rockets, not to patrol the streets of Gaza. Do you have reliable sources that all of the policemen were involved in launching rockets? Even if a small minority were launching rockets (as a minority of police in most countries is involved in drugs etc.) most police officers are there to maintain law and order. Actually, they have been doing this even amidst the Israeli offensive.[34]VR _talk 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I dont think HRW is a POV of a side. Also what I was saying that it doesnt necessarily follow that the police are involved in these activities is that the article says 'many security force member moonlight', but defines security forces as more than the police. So the line 'many security force member moonlight' != 'police forces moonlight'. And yes I know what moonlight means. Obviously, anything tundrabuggy wrote I didn't read based on past experiance. Nableezy (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are taking that tact, as my purpose on this talk page is to improve the article. I will continue to read your contributions and feel free to comment on them. That is what the WP:TALK pages are all about. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And english is my first language, no need to be a dick because i misspelled fire.Nableezy (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Ill assume good faith that this was not an insult, but yes, my first language is English) Nableezy (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not the contributor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a comment on the content of a comment. Leave me alone. Nableezy (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But I am cool with the passage you wrote up there, my issue was how it is presented in the infobox. At least I would say it should say 400-650 (includes x police) without any further explanation. Acceptable? Nableezy (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that police should be mentioned in the infobox, but not as part of the militants. They should have a separate category. They should also not be a part of the civilians.VR _talk 05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the numbers we are using for militants, the IDFs, include the police. We cannot rightly subtract the number, so we would have to further define militants to include police. That is the IDF POV, so as The Squicks said we cannot have one without the other, right? So I still think that we should explain each 'sides' position, though I still cannot see how one can say that HRW represents a side, about what is and is not a militant. Nableezy (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You all know my position on this and as far as I am concerned I stand by with Nableezy. I would even agree with what he said to add the note from HRW. Listen VR the problem here is you are using the 400-650 number as a number of militants killed, but THE IDF COUNTED THE POLICEMEN IN THAT NUMBER WHEN THEY STATED IT, YOU ARE CHANGING THE FACTS OF THE SOURCE REFERENCE WHEN YOU SEPARATE THE POLICEMEN FROM THE 650 NUMBER THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO PUT ARMED FORCES: 400-650 AND NOT MILITANTS OR FIGHTERS: 400-650. As Nableezy said, we can add in the notes section that according to HRW the 138 policemen can be considered civil servants and not active combatants under international law by some. Liste how many times do I have to say this, THE IDF COUNTED COPS IN THEIR NUMBER, THE IDF COUNTED COPS IN THEIR NUMBER, THE IDF COUNTED COPS IN THEIR NUMBER, THE IDF COUNTED COPS IN THEIR NUMBER. We already noted that that number comes from the IDF so people will understand. Add in the notes section a sentance which goes: According to HRW the 138 policemen can be considered civil servants and not active combatants under international law by some. Like I said above. Can we do with this? Can we put it like this? If nobody objects to this by this evening I will make the necesary changes and melt the copes number with the overall number of people killed that the IDF consideres their enemy. And I will add in the notes section the opinion of HRW. And VR, if you revert me again prepare for an edit war and I will seek a Wikipedia arbitar, because I have had it with your POV pushing since day one of this article regarding these cops that got killed. I presented you with cold logic facts but you chose to ignore them and made no attempts to make a consensus with editors that disagreed with you and only pushed your opinion.BobaFett85 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt even say that, I would say that according to HRW police are presumptively innocent unless the police are Hamas fighters or taking a direct part in the hostilities, or police stations are being used for military purposes. That statement makes no judgement as to whether or not the police were engaged in hostilities or whether or not that stations were used for military purpose, just informs the user as to how, according to HRW, the status of police is determined. I cannot see how that would be POV. But whatever yall say. Nableezy (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Israelis' claim that they were targeting "Hamas security apparatus" by striking the police station, a policeman, who was one of the survivors of the attack, stated, "No, it's not right. There are Hamas, Fatah and people who have no political affiliation to any factions working at the police stations. The Police Force is not political, its an institution for the people." [35] I think his words are more truer than anything you will hear about the police. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dieter Fleck, Michael Bothe, The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts, Oxford University Press, 1995 pp.306ff. discusses precisely this issue. Notification by sides of the status and combatant nature of the regular police force is required before the latter can be regarded by one of the parties in conflict as a legitimate object of military action. Israel does not recognize Hamas, and regards all of its components as terrorists, so one presumes the law, which deals with inter-states obligations, has not been taken into consideration. Israel does not admit the distinctions made in international law in the case of Hamas. Like much of the shoddy international coverage.Nishidani (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen people, in any case, the 400-650 number can not be put separately from the 138 cops because the Israelis counted them into that figure, so like Nableezy said it would be redundant. In fact we would be double counting bodies ourselves. End of story.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Would making the lead something short like ''X dead (Y police officers)<ref>The question of whether or not Hamas police officers are combatants is disupted.</ref>'' be an acceptable compromise?

It does not matter what the Israeli's count policemen as. The simple, UNQUESTIONABLE fact is that we cannot demonstrate that policemen as a collective group are or aren't combatants, its downright impossible to prove that. Concensus is right and fair in noting police casualties seperately. I can understand your concerns that it will appear to inflate the death count, but if clearly noted that policemen are tallied differently in the interests of fairness, I see no problem. Superpie (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As for your statements on changing the source, we must seek to find as wide a number of sources as possible. I dont think it a good idea to start interpreting data within sources in such a manner, but at the same time I dont think its right to permit the Israeli side to define what is and is not a combatant. Superpie (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen Superpie you CAN NOT just say It does not matter what the Israeli's count policemen as. Why? Because we are using their number in the infobox, and people need to know that the number given by the Israelis includes the policemen, I don't understand why is it for some of you to understand that, it's plain and simple. I don't say to count them as Hamas fighters, but to note that they are included by the Israelis in the number they are claiming to have killed. So, how about this. I am making now a new proposal, and please people agree on this. We include in the casualties1 and casualties2 section only combatants killed, on the Israeli side their soldiers and on the other side we put the number claimed by the IDF, but we make a note of it that they included cops in their number and also say that policemen are regarded as civilians by the Palestinians, then we put Israeli and Palestinian civilians in casualties3 section along with the Egyptians and Fatahs supporters killed by Hamas, and the number we put will also include the policemen and again make a note that the number of civilians includes policemen who regarded as civilians by the Palestinians. How about that?BobaFett85 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read what I said, in laymans terms i've suggested we find sources which do note the difference. In the event this is impossible, then I stand by what other editors have done because it is important to make the distinction. Im ok with what you're suggesting, but I cant imagine it remaining very long. Superpie (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also The Squicks, the source you used does not evidence that the police are engaged in military activity, only that certain members are. Nobody is denying that the police are likely full of Hamas militants, but not all are and certainly, there have been no reports of policemen engaging in hositilities, at least that I have seen. I would welcome being told if there are reliable sources otherwise. :) Superpie (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bobafett85, or can anyone show me where the IDF have quoted the 138 policemen figure in their 400-650 dead?? I looked at the sources and couldn't find that? Also, if they have quoted the number can't we just subtract 138 from both 400 and 450? Why are we obliged to use the Israeli POV in this article?VR _talk 20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen VR, we use the Israeli number of people they regard as the enemy who have been killed because they are the only ones who gave a definite number. Also, what's that about the source you used does not evidence that the police are engaged in military activity, only that certain members are. We stoped talking about that because there were to many of us who differed on that, so please do not return on that subject. What we did agree, except you apparently, is that the IDF did count policemen in their 400-650, so we have to make a note of that. In any case: Fipplet, Nableezy and I agreed on that the cops should be counted in the 400-650 number, not as part of the number of militants killed, but just that they were included in the 400-650 number. Also, Superpie now also said he wouldn't have a problem with my new proposal. Under which we would put civilians in the third section of casualties, and put a note that cops are counted both among civilian fatalities and among the number of militant fatalities the IDF counted. Please, listen to me. According to the Palestinians count less than 100 militants were killed, I mean, how crazy is that? If the Israelis realy did kill this much civilians, they certanly did also kill hundreds of militants. In any case, four of us now agree on my proposal, what about you VR?BobaFett85 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because nobody agree's shouldnt mean we quit talking about it ;) Superpie (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Source???? BobaFett85, where is the source that says Israel is counting policemen in 400-650? And after that find how many police is IDF counting in 400-650 militants killed? 138? 170? Some lower number? We can't say the number includes 138 policemen when the IDF claims a different number were killed.

Regarding your proposal, it is contrary to the purposes of the infobox. According to Template:Infobox Military Conflict "The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles." How can you claim that Israeli civilians killed should not be considered part of the Israeli "side"? How can you claim that Palestinian civilians killed should not be considered part of the Palestinian "side"? Also, how do we separate the Palestinian wounded? Do we put the 5,000 wounded number in the casualties2 or casualties3?

You need to answer the above questions regarding your proposal.VR _talk 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no source because IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, but if you think they do not count them then explain why one of the main targets of the first day of bombings were almost primarily the Palestinian institutions? And if 250 people died the first day and we established 138 of them were cops that means more than 50 percent of fatalities were cops, that proves they were purposly targeted by the IDF and they were regarded as the enemy by the Israelis. Furthermore, if we sum up the current number of 750 confirmed civilians killed with the minimum of combatants dead that the IDF is claiming 400 (with the 167 cops among those 400) we would get 1,150, which is the current number of Palestinians killed, this gives more logical proof that the IDF counted the cops in their number. THE MATH ADDS UP. If we follow this pattern 750+400(167 cops)=1,150 everything is like it should be. As far as to the regard of your claim The combatant3 field may be used if a conflict has three distinct "sides", and should be left blank on other articles. That simply is not true. The casualties field that is in the bottom of the infobox and horizontali is used in dozens of articles on Wikipedia for civilian casualties, the vertical casualties fields are used for military casualties, yes there are instances that there are three or even four sides in a war, but we use vertical casualties fields primarily for miltiary casualties, the horizontal one at the bottom is a back-up for civilian casualties for just these kind of cases for compromises. If you don't belive me check out these articles which torpedo your theory: 2006 Lebanon War, Iraq War, 2007 Lebanon conflict, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), War in Somalia (2006–present), War on Terrorism... Especialy direct your attention to the 2006 Lebanon War article, we had a simillar situation there also like here. They counted both Lebanese and Israeli civilian casualties in the third casualties field. If you want, I can get you a few more articles?BobaFett85 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want we can drag this to WP:V, because on wikipedia there is no such argument as "IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE". Everything must be verified using published sources.

Also, your numbers seem to be a case of apples and oranges. The IDF isn't claiming that it has 750 civilians have been killed, the PCHR is claiming that. The IDF is actually claiming that 250 civilians were killed[36] so that gives your math a discrepancy of 500 dead (an error of close to 50%). Secondly, why do you expect the numbers to "ADD UP". It is perfectly reasonable to assume that at this point many casualties have not been classified as civilian/militant or have been misreported.

The wars you mentioned above were all part civil wars, except 2006 Lebanon War. So it was basically Iraqi (insurgent) vs. Iraqi (army) etc. I would use the format you talk of in a Hamas-Fatah war, where the belligerents are both Palestinians, but here we actually have two different sides. In the case of the 2006 Lebanon war, note that civilians aren't listed at all for the Lebanese side. Only the citizens or total number of dead are.

Finally, how about this proposal: let's assume you are correct in insisting that the IDF claims that 138 out of 400-600 are policemen. Then why can we not just state that the militant casualties are 262-462? (Subtracting 138 from both 400 and 600).VR _talk 06:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding examples, if we consider war between two parties, and not civil wars, we have the following examples: Iran–Iraq War, Kargil War (India vs. Pakistan), Falklands War (UK vs. Argentina), 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq (Turkey vs. KWP) etc. All these examples have no casualties3.VR _talk 06:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think from this line:

At least two senior Hamas commanders were killed in the air strikes. One was identified as Maj.-Gen. Tawfiq Jabar, commander of the Gaza Strip police, who was killed at the Gaza Police Academy during a graduation ceremony; 70-80 Hamas operatives were reported killed in that attack.

in this article it is clear they are counting police in their number. Nableezy (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, but how many? 70-80? 138? 170? How can you say that 138 are included in the 400-650 figure? The IDF didn't say that number, so you're putting it in their mouth.

But Nishidani, what do you think of my proposal: once we find out how many policemen the IDF are including in their 400-650 figure, why don't we just subtract the number. Say if they're saying 80 policemen then we can say 320-570 as the militant casualty figure.VR _talk 07:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would accept your proposal VR, but the problem is that we could only do that if the IDF came out and said Of the 400 militants killed x were policemen. We have to do with what we have, and that's the overall number given by the IDF and the number of cops given by the Palestinians themselves. For the last time, THE IDF COUNTED ALL OF THE COPS IN THEIR OVERALL NUMBER BECAUSE THEY CONSIDERED THEM ENEMY COMBATANTS. Listen, it's not a question anymore if the cops are the enemy or not, it's a question if the IDF counted them in their number. They have. And I have made a proposal to include both an overall number given by the IDF with a note it includes cops and an overall number of civilians with a note it also includes cops, and we put the civilian casualties in the third field of casualties. The example of the 2006 Lebanon war article is an excelent one, they did it like they did because they had a problem how to include regular Lebanese soldiers killed during the war who were not the primary target of the IDF (Hezbolah was), but again they targeted some of them. In the end dead Lebanese soldiers were included in the civilian toll in the third field. Fortunatly for editors, that time the IDF didn't include soldiers in their overall number of enemy combatants killed, but here they have included cops with militants.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok let me spell out the problem with your proposal: you want to say that the IDF claims it has killed 70-80, 138, 170 (whatever number) of policemen. But the IDF doesn't say that. The only thing established here is the IDF is considering policemen to be Hamas operatives, nothing else. It would be wrong for us to claim that the IDF says 138 policemen were killed.

Why can't we assume that the IDF claims the same number of policemen as PCHR? Because IDF numbers in other areas contradict PCHR numbers by a wide margin. I've already given you the example of civilians: IDF claims 250 civilians dead, PCHR claims 750 civilians dead. We can't use the PCHR number and attribute it to the IDF.VR _talk 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would not be wrong at all. Listen now very carefully, you are not listening to me. Number one, we have a reference with an IDF claim of 400-650 enemy fighters dead. Number two, we know the IDF consideres cops enemy combatants based on the fact that on the first day they exclusivly targeted police instalations and police officers, so there is your proof, they don't need to say it BECAUSE IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, THEY INCLUDED COPS IN THEIR NUMBER. Number three, we have a reference with the claim from the Palestinians themselves that they confirmed the deaths of 167 policemen. Number four, if we combine those two references we get a number of 400-650 dead considered by the IDF to be enemy combatants, among them are also counted policemen, and we have a confirmation by Palestinians that at least 167 policemen died. End of discussion. Four of us have agreed on this course of action and I will make the proper edits to the infobox, but will wait for one last reply from you.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Listen, it was never my intention to argue with you VR, I just simple wanted to point out that the number given by the IDF that we are using includes the 167 policemen, that is all. It wasn't my intention to include them just because I thought they were militant operatives which is in contrast with the other sides claimes that they were civilians. Again, all I wanted to do is to proof that the IDF included them in their number. And with the number given by both the IDF and the Palestinians, readers can see for themselves when they read 400-650 (167 policemen) just how many of them were plain regular militants that were not part of the security services. But you can not contradict the fact that most of the cops were established as Hamas operatives. The ones that were not probably Hamas were the 40 regruts that were killed. OK, I'll stop insisting on the third field, but you have to let me add the policemen in the IDF count. Here is something we can probably agree on, the 400-650 number includes both policemen and militants, so how about this we don't put Fighters: 400-650 or Militants: 400-650 or even Combatants: 400-650. We will put Militants and policemen: 400-650 and put in the notes section that 167 were established as policemen. How about that?BobaFett85 (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Caption of airstrike photo

Israeli air strike on Gazans

The still is from Aljazeera video footage and the caption included these two descriptions:

• Various shots of Israeli shelling Gaza strip with cluster bomb and smoke raising from building.
• Various high angle shots to Israeli helicopters bombing Gaza.

I wasn't sure which scene corresponded to which description and so I used air strike to describe the action because air strike can apply to both. The WP article on Airstrike states that "Airstrikes are commonly delivered from aircraft such as bombers, ground attack aircraft, strike fighters, and Helicopters. Weapons used in an airstrike can range from machine gun bullets, missiles, to various types of bombs. Airstrikes are sometimes initiated in strategic bombings, but the term generally refers to tactical intervention by airpower on the battlefield." Assuming this is a weapon launched from the air diagonally downwards, I called it an air strike. But this was called making up stuff. So can someone suggest an accurate caption thanks. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an airstrike, but shelling with M825. Flayer (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What is M825? I can't seem to find information on it anywhere. Also, I think it is best that you watch the video with the entirety of the attack. Here is the link, the exact footage starts at 8:12. Also can you confirm what is being launched at 9:30? Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[37], [38]. Flayer (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, this is WP for smoke screening (image), it clearly detonates mid-air. And the helicopter in the video is releasing Flares to avoid missles, see File:IAF-Apache-Flaers.ogv --Nezek (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Flayer (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Olmert ends the war tonight?

BBC says: "The Israeli cabinet is set to back an end to military activities in the Gaza Strip... a ceasefire at a meeting later on Saturday, after which PM Ehud Olmert will address the nation, sources said."

It also gives 1,200 as the final Palestinian death count (for now...). The Squicks (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. I should think the article should go onto the main page when this occurs? Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas". This article is far from settled :(. Superpie (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas'Superpie

Could you restrict your manifest partisanship to your edits, and not here? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall never joke or laugh again Nishdani Superpie (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Unless you are Irish (as I am) or Scythian, you don't joke at funerals. And certainly not those of others, especially of your enemies.Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well one out of two isnt bad. Nishdani, lighten up. Failing to find the silliness of it all amusing would kill me inside. I salute your ability to cope without a smile, but I cannot. Superpie (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7835794.stm, its over. Im going to wait until it actually happens before I go and add it. Superpie (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Subsection. Soaping in the cliché gallery.

Golda Meir (disputed) Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice how she said "Arabs"... of course, blaiming the victim is what Jewish grandmothers are supposed to excel at. But seriously, I would offer that self-respect is usually built better when others love you, and Golda Meir was rivers of nihilistic hate, to the point of historical, if verbal, genocide:

“ There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist. ”

When you deny a people their very existence as a people, you cannot simply expect them to love their children more than they hate us. It defies all common sense. Even a dog will risk its puppies if it means survival of the pack. I know many of you consider Palestinian sub-human, still..

IDF Lieutenant General and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, a warrior, who killed - when called upon the gruesome task by his consience - with his own hands, not like a coward with the pen and the Cabinet meeting, came to realize after years of leading the IDF and being its most important soldier:

“ Let me say to you, the Palestinians: We are destined to live together on the same soil, in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from battle stained with blood, we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before our eyes, we who have attended their funerals and cannot look into the eyes of their parents, we who have come from a land where parents bury their children, we who have fought against you, the Palestinians -

We say to you today in a loud and a clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We have no desire for revenge. We harbor no hatred towards you. We, like you, are people people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live side by side with you in dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men. We are today giving peace a chance, and saying again to you: Enough. Let us pray that a day will come when we all will say: Farewell to the arms.

”

His words, are ever so much valid today than when uttered, when he embarked in the only war that would kill him, the "war for peace".

The West Bank doesn't burn tonight in part because Rabin's spirit dwells there. But Gaza? Gaza is all Golda Meir, all the time. Hamas is the flip-side of Golda Meir and a predicatable result of her denial of the Palestinians. Too bad, that in his time, Rabin did her bidding, a loyal soldier of Zion, who lived figthing for his nation's establishment, but died figthing for his nation's peaceful existence, at the hands of an ingrate whose existence as a free person was in large part the doing of Rabin himself. But yeah, you know this already.

I get out of my soapbox, but don't ever quote like that and don't expect a response. Some of us actually know real history, not just the banal plaitudes of the politicians and chickenhawks. --Cerejota (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aba Eban used to remark The Palestinians never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity. Hamas effectively put a Veto on Oslo accords, Rabin used to say about Hamas: We will work for peace as if there is no terrorism; and fight terrorism as if there is no peace AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabin didn't say that about Hamas, he said that about the PLO. Hamas were nobodies back then, and pretty much everyone in Palestine and Fatah saw them as an false flag of the Shin Bet. Many in the PLO still do. :D --Cerejota (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You browse 4chan and other *chans, don't you? Haven't you seen the picture of the Hamas leader with the AK-47 who has a Mossad-style star of david tattoo on his chest that's just slightly visible, mostly obscured by his jacket? Is that a photoshop? The Squicks (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Gallery 0 8 3307.jpg

SHIT BRICKS!!! - Quick before it gets baleted CSD.

I believe the correct term is: I shat bricks. :D That picture also made the rounds in the blogsphere:[39], its in the comments, but I seriously doubt it is real. I think its not shooped, I just think it is JPG artifacts, a visual effect. BTW, I am so oldfag, that I was doing memes when moot was a babyfag, so I don't chan. I just was laughing when 4chan made main page the other day, because it had been speeded deleted as vandalism like a billion times before.--Cerejota (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I remember it differently. Rabin said it after signing Oslo accords with PLO. Hamas rejected it ( as it continues to do now ) and started sending suicide bombers. Veto is a clean word. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was an agingfag, but I got over it. Seriously, there are so many other places to me to get my gay fetish material, places more tolerant and accepting of diverse lifestyle choices. I was sick of the "Yiff in hell" and "enjoy your AIDS" comments. And their resistance only makes my penis harder. The Squicks (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about?... I'm so out of touch on things, apparently... Rabend (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Squicks: do not answer, the Rules of the Internet #1 and #2 forbid it. This is Serious Business...--Cerejota (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I started this thread. I want my turn on the soapbox. I believe what the historians at the New York Review of Books believe:

“ In Israel, endemic governmental weakness and instability and deepening social fragmentation, combined with the spoiling capacity of small yet increasingly powerful settler constituencies, call into question the state's ability to achieve, let alone carry out, an agreement that would entail the uprooting of tens of thousands of West Bank settlers. The generation of Israeli founding fathers, perhaps, might have succeeded in carrying off such a withdrawal, though it says something that even they didn't try. Their successors, more factional chiefs than national leaders, are not so well equipped. -

The graver problem today is on the Palestinian side. If one strips away the institutional veneer—Fatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, various secular political groupings, the Palestinian Authority—what is left is largely empty shells with neither an agreed-upon program nor recognized leadership. The national movement, once embodied by Fatah and Arafat, is adrift. From its vestiges, the Islamist movement Hamas has flourished and, amid the flurry of negotiations between Abbas and Olmert over a putative albeit wholly theoretical deal, it cannot have escaped notice that the more practical and meaningful negotiations have been between Israel and Hamas—over a cease-fire, for example. Still, the Islamist movement cannot, any more than Fatah, claim to represent the Palestinian people or to be empowered to negotiate on their behalf. The rift between the two organizations, most visibly manifested in the increasingly deep split between the West Bank and Gaza, makes a two-state solution harder to achieve. Israel long complained it had no Palestinian partner and, at the outset, the complaint had the feel of a pretext. Increasingly, it has the ring of truth.

”

They conclude that "Obama could do worse than consider some simple advice. Don't rush. Take time, take a deep breath, and take stock. Who knows, fresh and more effective policies might even ensue. Now that would be change we could believe in." The Squicks (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

First, the line "Still, the Islamist movement cannot, any more than Fatah, claim to represent the Palestinian people or to be empowered to negotiate on their behalf." is flat wrong. They can claim to to represent the Palestinian people more than Fatah. See, there is thing, you might have heard, it is called elections. When one party wins an election, it can claim to, indeed it does, represent the electorate. And I dont want to even respond to that Meir quote, just thinking of the expletives I would start launching has made me exercise my better judgment to keep quiet on that one. Nableezy (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I really would hope that Fatah would represent more Palestinians than Hamas would, just as much as I would hope that the left wing movements in Israel would represent more Israelis than the right wing ones. Rabend (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are we discussing the infamous quote of the ugly dead hag?...Here is a quote I would like to share about Israeli portraying themselves as victims defending themselves against persecution: “The self-righteousness is a powerful act of self-denial and justification. It explains why the Israeli Jewish society would not be moved by words of wisdom, logical persuasion or diplomatic dialogue.” - Ilan Pappe --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend, I understand why you would hope that, but I think you, as an Israeli who hopes for peace (hope that is not a mischaracterization of you), need to see that you have to make peace with those who do represent the Palestinians, as of the last election at least, who knows what will happen when/if there is another. The biggest problem I have with the Israeli politicians who proclaim they want peace with the Palestinians is that they refuse to even acknowledge much less negotiate with them. It seems that if you truly want peace you negotiate with those who have been chosen to represent the people with whom you are in conflict with. But that has not yet happened. When Hamas won, the whole world, instead of hailing a peaceful, democratic election, in a region that has not seen many, instead demanded that this 'terrorist' organization not be allowed to govern. It didnt matter that more people voted for them then their opponents, it only mattered that people see them as only one thing, 'terrorist'. This has indeed been seen throughout this conflict as well with the bombing of what would normally be considered government and civil structure, which has been presented by the Israeli government as part of Hamas infrastructure. Forget that this is actually Gaza infrastructure, but any type of connection with the government, elected by the people, has been used to label it as 'terrorist'. I think if the Israeli government actually sat down with Hamas, as the elected representative of the Palestinians, you might be able to achieve some sort of lasting peace. Just consider what the 'demands' of Hamas were to extend the original ceasefire. Stop the targeted assassinations, which was a part of the original ceasefire but not respected, and open up the border crossings. In return Hamas guaranteed no more rocket fire from them, and a commitment to stop anybody else who attempted to fire on Israel, and punish those who successfully fired on Israel. Do you really think that any of that was unreasonable? But because Israel will not even sit down with Hamas, it never had a chance. Now obviously Hamas does not represent all Palestinians, and obviously there are some who are disgusted at their tactics, but elections have consequences, and one of the consequences of the last election was that Hamas can now legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian people. This isn't really the place for this (funny me saying that after this long post) so I'll stop here. Nableezy (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with all you are saying. The only thing is that the view in Israel is that Hamas really intends to do what it can in order to destroy Israel, since this is pretty much its manifest, and due to all the terrorism it initiated. And to see that most of the Palestinians chose a party that is not ashamed to clearly state it wants the destruction of Israel, is kind of discouraging. That's like Meir Kahanah's party getting over 50% of the votes in Israel. And due to Hamas's declared manifest, I, as an Israeli, must be skeptical about how much Israel would really achieve in the long run if it entered a long ceasefire with Hamas. Are they only gonna arm themselves and wait for the right opportunity to come and destroy Israel, like they say? Can you see what I'm saying? Rabend (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see what you are saying, which is why I understand you would rather Fatah have the support of the people. But there is a long history of militant groups, once becoming a part of the political process, putting down their arms. And it unimaginable to me, even after 100 years, that Hamas would ever possess the technology to destroy Israel, so I really dont think you have to worry about that. Hamas is like a mosquito to the elephant of the IDF, that it could bite Israel to death seems highly unlikely. Nableezy (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, you managed to change my mind a little bit about things. I am still concerned that Hamas is brainwashing children to hate Israel, but I hope it is not affecting too large a part of the population. And I hope that Hamas is indeed capable of shedding its belligerent stance, and that the Israeli elections will result in a strengthened peace core. Rabend (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A huge amount of intelligence, sensitivity, empathy and common sense gets censored, especially here in America, by those who claim to be "protecting" Israel. Their indignant "protection" has all but destroyed Israel, because it has deprived Israel of the ability to see itself and others objectively. Take the statement you just made about Hamas brainwashing children. Common sense tells us that children who see their parents, relatives, friends, and classmates bombed, killed, starved, tortured, abused, etc. don't need to be taught to hate: Hate is the most natural thing in the world, when one has been made to live under occupation for forty years. Common sense tells us this, empathy tells us this, but somehow, it doesn't get through to the occupiers. They think the hatred is all due to a handful of "agitators". So they assassinate the supposed "agitators", creating a new wave of terror in the process.

The Israeli rulers never seem to notice that the killing makes things worse, not better. That leads me to believe that there is a hidden agenda -- that the people who rule Israel do not want to make things better. I believe that they are still trapped in a dead-end ideology. They still believe in "A land without people for a people without land", and if the facts say otherwise, then simply bomb the facts until the land really is "without people". It's madness, but that is what ideology is: a form of madness. What is clear is that Israel's number one enemy is Israel itself: Its course, from the start, has been self-defeating and suicidal. NonZionist (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What you say, Nableezy, is perfectly obvious. If it's obvious to us, then it must be obvious to Israel as well. The Israelis are not stupid. So why does Israel continue to act in such a self-destructive way? What are we missing?

In war, things are rarely as they seem on the surface. The stated reason for a war and the real reason are two very different things. So what is the real reason for the attack on Gaza? Are we allowed to ask this question?

I believe that the real aim is to destroy Iran. The attack on Gaza is meant to pave the way for the creation of a much larger catastrophe. The proponents of the 1996 "Clean Break" plan are still in power. They see Iraq as a "success", and they think they can achieve an even bigger "success" by wiping out Iran. They think they can dig themselves out of the hole by digging the hole deeper. NonZionist (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There will not be Peace because the Palestinians do not want peace. The Palestinians were offered the 'Arab Peace Initiative'. It was a monumental opportunity to end the conflict. Hamas opposed the Initiative whereas Abbas was so supportive that it even ran ads for it in Israeli newspapers. But the Palestinians chose to burn the Saudi-lead olive branch by electing Hamas. In all honestly, I don't personally care how many deaths are necessary to get Hamas out. Because if they are out, then we can finally have the 'Arab Peace Initiative'. And, if accepted, that initiative will create "a sea of peace that begins in Nouakchott and ends in Indonesia". The Squicks (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall that initiative was met with equal ambivalence among both Hamas and the Israeli government. You selectively read from single sources, there were members of the Hamas government who expressed openness to the deal as well as Israeli ministers who called it unacceptable. That you would say 'I don't personally care how many deaths are necessary' is truly abhorrent to me as a human being, regardless of the intended result. It is precisely those comments that, to selectively use a quote from Rabend, 'brainwashing children to hate Israel'. Just look at that statement again as a human being, look at how many children have been killed, and as abhorrent look at that picture of the baby generating so much discussion. That such a thing could even be allowed to happen honestly makes me cry. That such a thing could be said in response to that, honestly makes me hate. I am a grown man and I am having trouble typing this response, out of the sheer sadness and hate that comment makes me feel. I will not be responding to this thread again. Nableezy (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I respect your beliefs and your decision. I'd just like to clarify that those children's deaths sicken me every little bit as much as it sickens you. It sickens me the same way that the dozens of dead Serbian children killed by Muslim Bosnians and by (mostly American) NATO soldiers sickens me. I cried when I saw the dead Palestinian baby the same way I had cried when I saw those dead Serbians years ago. That sickening feeling does not lead me to call Bill Clinton an imperialist and to wish that NATO had never been involved at all. It does not diminish by feeling that NATO had to do what it did to create the situation for a peace agreement. It did what was necessary for the greater peace in the long run. I hate war. I hate it like sin. War is hell and war is evil, but it is a necessary evil. That doesn't mean I like it. I just accept it as a matter of reality. The Squicks (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"War. There is no solution for it. There is never a conqueror. The winner generates such hatred that he is ultimately defeated." -- Michel Simon, quoted in the New York Times, 17 Mar 1968

Personal feelings -- "I hate war" -- mean little if you then accept war in practice, Squicks. War is just the human race committing suicide: It is an unnecessary evil. War is a racket -- as USMC Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said -- and it is mega-terror, terrorism times a thousand. I too opposed the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, by the way. Don't hate war: Prevent it, avoid it, reject it. We prevent it by treating others as our equals, by listening to their grievances, by seeking justice, and by learning to face the truth about ourselves. NonZionist (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are a pacifist. I understand that and I understand where you are coming from. We just have to agree to disagree. The Squicks (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a pacifist, since I recognize the right of self-defense, where "defense" is defined to mean just that: defending our borders and resisting aggression. Attacking helpless third-world countries on the other side of the planet is not what I would call "defense". But how do we defend against "terrorists", you ask. The answer is that we treat them like common criminals. Treating terrorism as a pretext for war-making was Hitler's approach -- look it up. How well did that turn out?

To summarize: I distinguish between defense and offense (military aggression). I oppose only the latter. Thanks again for responding. See any common ground yet? How's your "foreign involvement" article coming? NonZionist (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Images of the dead

Having visited this page with regard to simply finding out more info on the conflict, I was a bit surprised to skim down the page and see images of dead people. I'll admit I'm not aware of wikipedia policy regarding this type of thing and I don't want to downplay the massive killing in gaza but isn't isn't this a bit distaseful? My 2 cents. Cider86 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This debate is ongoing elsewhere and the concensus from what I see is pretty split. In my view, portraying war for anything other than the repulsive act of violence in which there are no boundaries is irresponsible and in my view, more distasteful. Wiki policy is clear on censorship to my knowledge Superpie (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many pictures of dead people in Wikipedia articles. For example, scroll down this article: Holocaust. --John Bahrain (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Cider86, wikipedia is not censored. "Distasteful" is never a criterion for images, copyright status, quality (e.g. resolution), relevance and amount of information contained are all valid criteria to evaluate images.VR _talk 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

But these images are not representative of the conflict. If 30% of the casulties are children (according to palestinian sources) why are 100% of the photos in the casulties section children? Surely shouldn't we have images of other dead civilians and Militants which is a very big group if not biggest to properly illustrate the conflict? And we also should have some pictures of Israeli casulties as well.--Fipplet (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And if 99% of the casualties (according to all sources) are Palestinians, then should we have one picture of an Israeli casualty for every 99 pictures of Palestinians? RolandR (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that we shouldn't have 2 pictures of dead children and 1 of unknown while there are many "other casulties" as well. Why not; one picture of a child, one of other civilians, one of a militant and one of Israeli casulties to illustrate the different "kinds of casulties" of conflict. In a way that contradicts what I just said but my point is that it is enough with one picture of a child to illustrate that children dies. The text still sais alot of children dies. --Fipplet (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fipplet. The current selection of images are not representative of even just the Palestinian casualties. We have too many pictures of dead and ailing children, and I think the charred baby image should be the first to go. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

From reading the comments of RolandR and Fipplet I think it would be WP:Undue weight to have an equal number of Israeli casualties as Palestinian casualties. As for showing children, adults, men, women, etc., I agree we need a representative gallery. But we need someone to upload those free photos, and we need someone to upload some free Israeli casualty photos. Here is where all the correctly-categorized casualty photos are:

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

We could put some damage photos from Israel though in the article in the meantime. See:

commons:Category:Damage from 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict --Timeshifter (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who screwed up the second paragraph? It is completely tilted now.

It now reads:

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19, 2008. Contending that Israel had not lifted the Gaza Strip blockade and following an Israeli raid into the Gaza Strip on November 4, Hamas resumed its rocket and mortar attacks on Israel. After initially announcing, on December 19, that the truce was "over" and there would not be a renewal, Hamas said it would consider extending the truce on December 23 if its demands were met. On December 27, 2008, Israel launched its military operation with the stated objective of eliminating Hamas' ability and/or will to fire rockets at Israel's southern cities and communities. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.

Unless this is fixed rapidly, I suggest turning to the briefest of the stable earlier versions of this paragraph, for instance.

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008, after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza, and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities. Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire and prevent the rearming of Hamas. Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.

Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way note to 'Israel's southern cities and communities' (another weasel word, this last one. It is in every article on Israel, as if a community were distinct from a city, town etc.) simply does not bear out the emended text, since it refers to securing security in southern Israel. The paragraph further suggests Israel was unilaterally subject to rocket attack in the period, which is simply not true. Whoever did this was in bad faith. Hence the need to revert to the terse consensual paragraph of some time ago.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Communities" is not a weasel word, and it is often used in the foreign media in the context of Hamas rockets. Israel (like most if not all countries) has official designations for different sizes and types of places where people live: city, town, moshav, kibbutz, etc. "Community" is a simple term to cover everything that's not a town or a city. So your premise is wrong. A community is different from a city and a town, and is used specifically to make that distinction. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys don't be lame. cities and communities is not a weasel wordage (I have a keen eye for that), but there is no need to get your undies all up in a bunch over the dramatics of Nishidani...--Cerejota (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Israel's southern cities and communities" should be replaced by just "Israel" or "Israelis". Southern Israel can be confused with Eilat, which is not targeted. And community is a vague word, if not a weasel one. Let's keep it simple.VR _talk 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How on earth is "communities" a weasel word? I agree with Jalapenos. The Squicks (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What, couldn't bear to say "and with Cerejota"?--Cerejota (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, "southern Israel" is the term being used across the board in the international media to describe the region within Israel subject to Hamas rocket attacks. I personally think that this was a poor choice on their part, for the reason mentioned by VR, and believe that "western Israel" would be more apt. But we have no business changing the term used by our reliable sources. Indeed, changing it would be more confusing than not changing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the second paragraph. It is longer but considerably more accurate. I erased the "Israeli communities" since it was not reflected in the reference as written. I put what the reference actually said concerning Israel's goals. Secondly, added context for the days between the 23rd, when Hamas said it would consider extending the "truce" until the 25th. During those days, Israel warned Hamas and Gaza and explained the rationale for the attack. It does not make sense to jump from the 23rd to the 27th without acknowledging that Hamas was warned by Israel. Actually, something should be mentioned about Hamas essentially telling Israel to stick it during those days, and on the number of attacks from Hamas from the day of the warning on the 25th, until the strike on the 27th. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for any one individual to write or rewrite a paragraph in a lead. So I take your 'rewriting', Tundabuggy, is just that, an inappropriate act. Leads are to be done collaboratively. Secondly, you like myself have a strong POV. These things are not to be dictated by individuals from one side or another, but consensually agreed on.

As to communities, it was not in the source. Cerejota for once does not know what he is talking about (sorry, but start to give me examples of where in I/P articles, 'community' is used of Palestinians, and for everyone I'll give you a dozen examples of articles where it is the preferred term to refer to Jewish villages and townships). There is nothing theatrical about my point. I was looking after other sections, came back to review the article, and found para.2 unrecognizable, and unbalanced, after so much work had been done collaboratively on it. I'm quite happy to parse the revised, unilateral section, or Tundrabuggy's further reworking, to show anyone why it has destablized the neutrality of the earlier text, with details that strongly tilt the text to Israel's perspective.

'Community' came into use throughout the English world in the 80s broadly to substitute society, which was too abstract and not warm enough. As societies atomized, or lost their former traditional neighbourly identities, 'community' was inducted into politicians' jargon to give a cosy sense of fellowship where none existed anymore. The more the economic doctrine 'individualized' values, the greater the need for its advocates to deny the obvious, and provide us with an anodyne wording that recalled what Ferdinand Tönnies called 'Gemeinschaft', i.e., the close, intensely felt world of rural and pre-industrial villages. Gemeinschaft is what modernity destroys, replacing it with 'Gesellschaft', i.e. 'society'. 'Community' is not geographical, or topological (which the context requires) but a form of social grouping, 'identity of character ore mores' 'a municipal unity', 'a body of people with shared ethnic origin, values' living together etc.. Hamas fires at areas, and townships, it does not fire at social groupings, except in so far as townships have them.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been stated time and time again by editors here that the previous wording suggests that Israel somehow woke up one day and decided to bomb the innocent and quiet Gazans for absolutely no reason. The jump from December 23rd where Hamas said it would consider a truce to the 27th where Israel bombed Gaza was simply empty. Further the previous version claimed that Hamas resumed attacks on Israel on November 4 when it simply extended them. The idea of a "truce" was simply imaginary and was honored by Hamas more in the breach. Something needs to be said about that because that was what instigated the attack. Israel warned Hamas that they should desist on pain of an attack. That needs to be there. Nothing I said was not accurate and supported with RS. Simply because the paragraph has been "stable" is no excuse for it being inaccurate and POV. It is because people tire of having their every edit reverted that it is "stable," not because it is accurate or neutral. You need to try to understand that. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Tags

Takes up my whole screen I can't even see the article without scolling down. Chillroy (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillroy (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

They are there for a reason. When the reason disappears, so do the tags.--Cerejota (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

The section of the article called Media coverage could be completely split to make Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, the above could be added as well. Anyone agree with this or think its a bad idea? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, and already suggested this once before (look in archive 18 or 19, I think). --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cerejota on this one. The Squicks (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything to small this one up Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a short summary should stay in the article, like reaction and incident sections JVent (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he did it wrong! LOL I am fixing now.--Cerejota (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and leads

In the last few days consensus has been ignored where it is absolutely essential, in the lead. Considerable leeway is given in the rest of the text, where however significant edits require that the proprieties of notification and discussion on the talk page be observed.

I have reverted the first and second paras. to the relatively stable forms pre-existing these abuses. I personally disagree with them on fine points, but do not interfere with them because they were arrived at by intensive negotiation, and compromise.

For example, in the consensual lead we now have:

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33] when Israel launched.

This is of course stupid, and resulted from an unresolved problem over the introduction of 'intensified'. Look at the logic. What intensified was 'the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict', not, as the syntax of the sentence has it, 'the 2008-2009 Israeli-gaza conflict'(wiki code for the Operation Cast Lead). Since the '2008-2009 Israeli-gaza conflict' is a provisory name for the war that broke out on the 27th., that war did not 'intensify' Operation Cast Lead'. It intensified the 'ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict' which however is not the subject of the sentence.

All modifications however have not addressed this unresolved problem in the consensual lead, but simply complicated it but adding details, mainly to thicken the lead (violating the call to be 'compact').

If one wants to challenge the lead, I suggest we rebegin with the problems in the consensual text, rather than complicate an already delicate understanding by editors who participated in drafting that lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the "intensified" is a POV pushing crap from people that won't let a dead horse rest in peace. Perhaps they should consider growing up. --Cerejota (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A wording more along the lines of: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict began when the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33] is more accurate. But I don't want to burn consensus and compromise is definitely needed. The Squicks (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That fixes the grammar, but it's factually wrong, since 'the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict', didn't intensify in the West Bank, where Palestinians are in a conflicted relationship with the occupying power. It's in the nature of this extremely complex historical world, not in my own niggling, that these problems occur and recur. I'm waiting for technical papers in journals by acknowledged historians to see what they can offer on things like this. Personally I would write provisorily: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza 'war, an extension of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, broke out on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33]. Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the lead, sugestion.

and some quotes can be moved to other sections.

The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[33] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[34][35][36] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]

A six-month truce between Hamas and Israel ended on 19 December 2008,[47][48][49][50] after Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade and for continuing raids in Gaza, and Israel blamed Hamas for the rocket and mortar attacks directed at its southern cities.[51] Israel's stated objectives in this conflict are to defend itself from Palestinian rocket fire[52] and prevent the rearming of Hamas.[53] Hamas demands the cessation of Israeli attacks and an end to the Israeli blockade.[54]

As of January 17, 2009, 13 Israelis (including 3 civilians) and 1,210 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed in this conflict. The Palestinian fatalities include 410 children and 85 women.[55]

On the first day of the Israeli operation, the Israeli Air Force bombed roughly 100 targets in four minutes, including Hamas bases, training camps, headquarters and offices[56][57] in all of Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City, Beit Hanoun, Khan Younis, and Rafah.[58][59][60][61][62][63] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons and personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70] The Israeli Navy has shelled targets and strengthened its naval blockade of Gaza, resulting in one naval incident with a civilian boat.[71][72][73]

Hamas has intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against Israel throughout the conflict, hitting such cities as Beersheba and Ashdod. The strike range of these rockets has increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.[74][75][76][77][78]

On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.[79][80] Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak stated that this will be a "war to the bitter end,"[81] while Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwant declared Hamas would "fight until the last breath."[82]

International reactions to the conflict have included calls for an immediate ceasefire, and concern about the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the hindrances in delivering aid.[83][84][85][86] In response, Israel announced daily three-hour "humanitarian ceasefires", which neither party has respected.[87][88] The UN and the Red Cross welcomed the move, but have criticized it as inadequate. [89][90][91]

On January 8, the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops, with 14 of 15 member states supporting the resolution and one abstaining (the United States).[92] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the resolution "unworkable" due to continued rocket fire, and Hamas spokesperson Ayman Taha accused the UN of having "not taken into account the interests of our people".[93]

Brunte (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think those are good removals. If I may suggest this edit: On January 3, 2009, the Israeli Defence Forces ground invasion began, with mechanised infantry, armor, and artillery units, supported by armed helicopters, entering Gaza.[79][80] Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak stated that this will be a "war to the bitter end,"[81] while Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwant declared Hamas would "fight until the last breath."[82]Superpie (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the editor who do it be carful not just delete it but see if it is included in other sections or include it. Brunte (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rem parts:

In response, Israel announced daily three-hour "humanitarian ceasefires", which neither party has respected. The UN and the Red Cross welcomed the move, but have criticized it as inadequate.

and

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the resolution "unworkable" due to continued rocket fire, and Hamas spokesperson Ayman Taha accused the UN of having "not taken into account the interests of our people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunte (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

and

The strike range of these rockets has increased from 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) to 40 kilometres (25 mi) since early 2008. These attacks have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure.

In my opinion, this line is quite important:

Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses and schools, have also been attacked; Israel claims that many of these buildings hid weapons and personnel and that it is not targeting civilians.[64][65][66][67][68][69][70]

I think this issue (the allegations made and the Israeli defense) needs to mentioned in the lead. I think the media, around the world, has focused a lot of attention on this; from that point of view, this is probably the most "notable" aspect of the war and, in fact, deserves more than this single sentence in the lead. I would agree with striking out the other lines. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC) P.S: Just to clarify; when I said 'other lines', I was referring to the initial proposal. I do not agree with Superpie's suggestion. In my opinion, some details regarding the ground invasion are necessary in the lead. Jacob2718 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ok. I leave that for now Brunte (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead should summarize in terse neutral language, balanced for each party to a conflict, the sections of the article. So far the lead does not do this, because the sections have developed without consideration for the lead. Until the sections and subsections are reworked, cut down, and extraneous material pared down, or hived off to other pages, we do not know exactly how the lead should be revised. Some of your suggestions are positive, but procedurally, we must first address the systematic revision of the article's main sections.Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jacob, the only details regarding the ground invasion important in the lead, is noting a ground invasion happened. What exactly this ground invasion comprised of is for later in the article Superpie (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nishidani - While the conflict was ongoing, the lead was more important. Now its the time to cleanup the article, and from there, cleanup the lead. Also see my gorilla comment below. --Cerejota (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then. It was interesting to do the little I did. More experiensed editors gogogo. I be around ;) Brunte (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Gorilla in the room

OK people:

The events covered in this article are apparently over. We should now get on the task of taking this mess and turning it into an encyclopedia article.

That said, I believe a lot of the problems have to do with the mess of previous articles we have, which has been partly solved by 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire.

But there are others, like the merger of 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict with 2007-2008 Israel-Gaza conflict.

I ask and invite the good set of editors from all sides to come in and help with a total cleanup. This can be done, and is essential so that this article can be beat into shape.

In addition, I think we should rename into 2008–2009 Gaza War.--Cerejota (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think we need the years, there is no disambiguation. Nableezy (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cerejota that we need the years. The Squicks (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion,Cerejota. Perhaps a call is needed for remarks on problematical passages, beginning with section 1, and going down the page. We should prepare a 'do list' perhaps. The Ist section on background should be brief, but it requires fleshing out, as well as a scalpel. One does need to know Gaza 1948, 1967, Israeli occupation, Sharon's withdrawal, Fatah's failure, the rise of Hamas. The blockade has a complex history, we need to summarize in a thumbnail sketch. The low-scale war since 2001-2008. Rockets and assaults by the IDF. I think, optimistically that can be done in a 10 line paragraph, though difficult. As it is it looks like a gang took over and just started firing rockets into Israel after Sharon did the nice thing, and withdrew. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is such an article for that summation Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is about a discrete part of that conflict, not the whole. --Cerejota (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We should halt renaming till this (part of) the war is over since we do not know what will happen next.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Initially, I opposed using "Operation Cast Lead" as the article name. Now, I think that is the best name for it. Israel dominated and controlled the situation, while Palestinians fled for their lives. To call this a "conflict" -- one side attacking, the other side fleeing -- is Orwellian. It was Israel's baby, from start to finish, so Israel gets to christen it. NonZionist (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PCHR number for civilian dead

User:Fipplet removed the PCHR number for civilian dead. See this diff: [40]

Edit summary: "Reuters is a very reliable source. Not The Palestinian MoH wchich is equivalent to IDF numbers."

Actually, Reuters is no more reliable than anybody else. They did not say where they got their number from. Many sources are throwing out numbers like "half" the dead are civilians, but without giving a source.

Reference that was removed: 22nd Day of Continuous IOF Attacks on the Gaza Strip. 17 January 2009. Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

We have already discussed these type of estimates by Palestinians and Israelis. We report the numbers and let readers decide. We report the IDF number for fighters, and we report the various MoH and PCHR numbers.

All of them have long been in the infobox. So Fipplet needs to get consensus to remove them.

Please see also this recent WP:ANI discussion about Fipplet:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Admitted sockpuppetry by User:Fipplet

I suggest WP:1RR to Fipplet. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Totally irresponsible editor.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also tundrabuggy continues to remove the Gaza Massacre from the lead here [41]. I would think this is turning into disruption. Nableezy (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Expect the same from Doright, judging from past performances on other articles.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

In the interests of making the article shorter and more encyclopedic, I removed the entire "Individual articles" subsection from this section; most of the items were opinion pieces. There are zillions of individual articles we could potentially point to, and for every opinion piece supporting one side, someone will want to add a piece supporting the other. I suggest that everyone working on the edit refrain from adding items that are not exceptionally notable, and remove those items if they are added. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I further added Paltube, a Hamas video site, since we should link to the perspectives of the warring parties. I would like to add the website of the Palestine Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but it seems to be down. Anyone know anything about this? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also removing the live webcam link, since the conflict is over. There should be more background/overview sources from mainstream media, like the BBC one. I think Reuters has a piece, but I can't seem to find it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The conflict ending at the time when 13 Isr. deaths were with 1300 Pal. deaths

Does it have any significance? Are there sources suggesting it was planned? Could it be that they were waiting for that outcome before calling a ceasefire to satisfy any internal political sentiment? Please let us know of any sources on the number issue - pre-planned. Leladax (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable sources commenting on this? If not, its OR. Although the facts are all in the article for our readers to make up their own mind --Cerejota (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Planned? Seriously? Is this a joke?! -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was meant to be a joke. Perhaps what Leladax meant was that the Israeli government may have had a list of objectives and a list of limits/constraints e.g. cripple Hamas without exceeding x civilian casualties before the current US admin's tenure comes to an end or something like that. That's plausible but as Cerejota says, without reliable sources it's irrelevant. I guess all of these kind of issues will be addressed by foreign affairs experts in the near future and Leladax may get his/her reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free pictures

Removed non-free pics, esp those with aJ logo all over them, yet again!--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you those pics are FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Stop it!! Go back to the thread that you created and you will find the answers. I am not going to keep posting why those are free. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Al Jazeera knows of it and approves of it, here is their email response:

"Thanks for letting us know!

We’re very excited about contributing to the “commons” and Wikipedia community." - Mohamed Nanabhay of Al- Jazeera creative commons.

Al Jazeera is so awesome. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Read the licensing before removal, further removal on licensing grounds will be considered vandalism. Al Jazeera has released these images as Creative Commons linsenced for share-alike, commercial and attribution (ie "by-sa"). We have to includes logos when they are in the material because the license requires it. Otherwise, these are fully lincesed.--Cerejota (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The logo can be removed from news video snapshots, but it is not necessary. All Wikimedia Commons images can be edited in any way. See the Al Jazeera license: {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. "Share-Alike" refers to the license not the image. All use of an image or its edited derivatives must also be licensed {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, I believe. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby - Al Jazeera is so awesome...are you kidding? Make a link your trying to POV the article. This ain't Pallywood you know.--98.114.235.212 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you rambling about with your mismatched random phrases, I think you just wanted to say "This ain't Pallywood you know." Thank Allah this ain't Hollywood, American media with your Faux News, Zionist News, and that CAMERA isn't operating here anymore to rewrite history. This article is going to tell other side, something you are not used to, and I hope I am part of that. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

These supremacist ideologues have destroyed freedom of the press and freedom of thought here in America. They view this destruction as one of their great successes; I view it as their greatest mistake. Their censorship is intended to harm Israel's victims, but it also harms Israel, for it deprives Israel of the ability to see itself and others objectively. The censors ensure that Israel is surrounded not by genuine friends, but by soulless yes-men. Nobody dares to give Israel honest advice.

Yes, it is refreshing to get more than one side, but it's sad that we Americans have to go all the way to Al Jazeera to find it. (There are many independent web sites that tell the other side, but they are not yet granted RS status.) NonZionist (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So your true colours now show, do they not Philistine fee Qalby?--98.111.139.133 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything other to do than to throw out melodramatic cliche phrases? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Falastine fee Qalby, if you actually did your homework you would know that Hollywood, along with the rest of the American left deplores Israel and all that it stands for, and that, like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Prez of Iran et al, would like to see them wiped off the face of the Earth and wiped out of history and our memories. Which is ironic as Zionism and socialism are pert near the same thing. They just haggle over where the world's capital will be.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Someday, when you do your homework, you will discover that Zionism has been making war on its own shadow, all these years -- with countless innocent people caught in the cross-fire. You will be shocked to find that there is a vast difference between the world created by a supremacist ideology and the world of reality, and you may actually come to prefer reality. NonZionist (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I must admit that whenever I'm feeling a little down, I look for your thoughtful reflections on the world. I imagine you in your secluded Wyoming cabin, the Conspiracy Theorist Disgest by the bed, cleaning your gun, and waiting for the Zionists to wage war on Wyoming, which is clearly the next step in their World Conquest 2009 plan. This helps me get on with my day. Rabend (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

AL Jazeera, the National Inquirer of the Arab world. Horay for Pallywood, that great and glorious Pallywood, yada yada.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't know how silly you sound as you keep repeating a term coined by a conspiracy theorist who dwells on disproving a few certain events meanwhile Israelis are committing even more disturbing events in the hundredfold.... in daylight without ambiguity... and documented by a few news organizations like Al Jazeera and human rights organizations, events not acknowledged by the israelis because they cannot phantom anyone but themselves as the victim. The term Pallywood exemplifies what exists among people like you: the self-righteousness and the denial. It is a lame excuse, a distraction which people across the world see through. The word means nothing, just like the foundation of your beliefs. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Civil--Tomtom (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. Wikipedia talk pages are not political discussion forums. So please stop trolling, Tomtom. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually tomtom isn't the one who is trolling. The troll is 98.111.139.133. I just realized Tomtom9041 and tomtom are different accounts, And tomtom created user pages for logicman1966 and bobofett 85. Sock puppetry or just a user who can't stand red links? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Al Jazeera photos are removed from both Tomtom and Tomtom9041 accounts, so the user is committing vandalism using 2 accounts. I am not sure if it is sock puppetry since he is not disguising himself, if he was he would be using two different names, but certainly this is disruptive editing using two (or more) accounts. What do you in this case? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reporting it to WP:ANI. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Times in the ceasefire section and intro do not match (I added 1 source to the other two referenced). Anyone feel like sorting this out?Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The ceasefire has already been broken by Hamas who has fired more than 20 rocket attacks within the first 12-14 hours of the ceasefire. [42]--Tomtom9041 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't violate a unilateral ceasefire if you did not make it Tomtom, read the source you provided, it says "But with more than 20 rockets fired from Gaza in the 12 to 14 hours between Israel's unilateral declaration and the Palestinians' own announcement," Hamas fired rockets before it made its ceasefire just to prove they could. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, just making a point.--Tomtom (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Parts of the Reactions section need to be restored. For example, it doesn't make sense for UNSC Resolution 1860 to be absent from this article. There are also a few particularly notable government reactions, such as those of Turkey and Jordan - whose relations with Israel were strained as a result of this conflict, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia - who, uncharacteristically, criticised Hamas sharply. I also don't see anything wrong with listing those governments which took a clear side; the ones who stuck to diplomatic gibberish, and probably didn't even know or care what was going on, can be left out. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention in the intro of the section, but the resolution even has its own article. We should be careful not to be redundant. --Cerejota (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli commanders

In the infobox, should Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert or maybe even foreign minister Tzipi Livni be noted as Israeli commanders? Olmert and Livni, along with SecDef Barak have been noted in many news articles as being a sort of 'triumvirate'.Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. RomaC (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, how could the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, be noted as an Israeli commander? PM and DefMin yes, ForMin, NO.--Tomtom (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Because she is a leader and representative of her country. In, say, Korean War, Harry Truman is listed as a commander. I agree that Olmert and Livni should be listed. They make the ultimate decisions (along with the cabinet?); the military commanders are the next chain of command, trying to achieve the politicians' objectivesJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

News report video

I find it odd that a Wikiepdia article has a news report video in the article, as news reports are not encyclopedic by nature. I think that ideally, the video should be edited/screencapped to leave only the acceptable portions. The problem is it's much more difficult to edit a video than it is to re-word a newspaper article and weed out the relevant statements.

• The video has POV statements by the narrator.
• The report itself is not a notable occurance, and has portions that aren't notable. For example, the childs testemony that states he doesn't know where his friends are at.
• Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports. --Nezek (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I think the only plausible way to get anything out of that video would be to screenshot some of the pictures, because news reports are, as you said, inherently biased. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removal, but there are some points that are specific and are being made general, and WP:NEWS doesn't apply here. I would support a video with an interview of a notable person, for example, even if it had POV statements. I would support inclusion of raw, unedited video of incidents (which is much like including images - except its dozens of images per second with a soundtrack) - this is not journalism but illustration. The notability argument, however, is totally convincing. I guess it all boils down to: is this encyclopedic?--Cerejota (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is the reporters' opinions and tone (POV) that keep poping up between the testemonies. A Wikipedia article would never have lines like "All over the hospital we saw civilian casualties of what Israel calls its war on Hamas" and "[...] because of Israel's descision to dismental Hamas by destorying Gaza", it is not encyclopedic, it is not a neutral point of view. If there's a reason Wikipedia is not intended as a primary news source, this is it. So WP:NOT#Journalism does apply here. The next reason to consider her POV important for the article is if it had some notable impact on the conflict, but it did not. --Nezek (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong. Perhaps if there was a section: "Media coverage of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict" and it was used to illustrate an example of media coverage then fine. Everything said in the video can easily be quoted in text 210.215.75.3 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Seems to be a consensus, and I have no qualms about being the enforcer. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Right then, who is feeling brave?

In the coming days and weeks this conflict is going to slip out of the news and into history. The 'status' section of the window on the right of the article will become a 'result'. But what is the result? It all depends on the aims. Now, the aims outlined in the second paragraph of the article for the Operation are to defend against Rocket fire. Therefore, if the rocket fire continues, this goes down as an "Israeli failure". If the rocket fire is prevented for the foreseeable future, we should rule an "Israeli victory."

I know this won't pan out as simple as that, but I don't see why not. OperationOverlord (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"I know this won't pan out as simple as that, but I don't see why not."

So what is it? The first or the last part of your sentence? Anyway, as I stated in other words somewhere above it is over when it is over and we won't know till at least in a week from now. And one thing is for sure: There won't be a "winner" to declare; Certainly not here on WP.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We as wikipedians shouldn't be the ones deciding. Once a majority comes to a conclusion, we can put it there. Changed my mind. All we need is something like the result of the 2006 Lebanon War article: "Ceasefire, provisioned by UNSC Resolution 1701.".Bsimmons666 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, but don't all wars end with a ceasefire? Otherwise they'd still be on-going because they'd never have.. ceased firing. Wars, battles and operations have results, they have outcomes. I hope we manage to decide what the outcome of Operation Cast Lead is in as definite terms as we can; its what we owe each other. OperationOverlord (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Way too early to be discussing the "result" IMO. I just read on aljazeera that there have been more than 20 rocket attacks within the first 12-14 hours of the ceasefire. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911915726719317.html

There's nothing to stop this from being anything different from the last ceasefire, there's every possibility that a week from now it'll all start up again.Andrew's Concience (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case, our task is fairly simple. Israel has failed in its aims. OperationOverlord (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Premature in my opinion. RomaC (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It has failed only in its stated aims. The stated aim and the real aim of a war are often two very different things. I believe that the real aim is to initiate the next phase of the 1996 "Clean Break" plan developed for Netanyahu by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other neo-cons entrenched in the highest circles of power here in the U.S.. The destruction of the Gaza Strip secures Israel's southern flank and paves the way for the ultimate aim, the nuclear annihilation of Iran. NonZionist (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

They can just go back in you know, as I am sure that they will.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As they say in opera, "it ain't over till the fat lady sings". And with two implacable foes eventually one will be wiped out and will take the other one with them. There is so much hate on both sides cooler heads will eventually be forced to intervene and prevail. But will they be too late? It won't matter when the place is a radioactive wasteland. Which is the way this is all headed.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment People. Let's face some objective facts.

• 1)Hamas is going to declare victory. Full stop. The circumstances are completely meaningless. As in the Soviet Union under Stalin, you declare victory to the party central committee and your dejected troops or you get a nine-millimeter hole in your back.
• 2)Israel is going to declare victory. Full stop. They've been fuzzy about their goals for this operation, and they have plausible deniability. Even if they fail to destroy Hamas or to free Gilad, they can still claim that rocket fire has decreased. Even if the fire does not in fact decrease, they can still claim that they "sent a message of deterrence" and that it will immanently fall. Seriously, have you ever seen a black and white report from the government about their war aims? They can be like teflon.

The Squicks (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about taking the Government(s) at face value, Squicks? We, as objective (insofar as we can reasonably be expected to be) chroniclers and historians, need to attempt to cut through the available documentary evidence and posit our collective hypotheses as to what each side was attempting to do. Now, if we take Hamas rocket-fire as a constant factor, and judge Operation Cast Lead as an Israeli response to it, our judgment naturally falls onto the Israeli side - was it an Israeli success, or an Israeli failure? That depends on the rocket-fire remaining a constant factor after the guns have fallen silent. Therefore, in your second scenario, if Israel claims victory because of deterrence, but rocket fire continues, we can posit that Hamas has not, in fact, been deterred, that the Israeli government is therefore wrong, and that no victory has been achieved. A campaign that does not meet its goals, and in fact reverts to the status quo ante bellum at considerable cost, is often considered a failure. OperationOverlord (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Too soon to even contemplate. Historians are still sorting the First Lebanon War!--Cerejota (talk) 07

27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Worrying edit summary

Tundrabuggy said this:

"There is ZERO CONSENSUS to add these photos. Please keep them off or we will go to DR".

Then take it there. Blackmail during an edit war never solved anything.--Cerejota (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DIMEs

Could someone define what the concerns about DIMEs are in the article. I'm not especially familiar with them so I don't want to myself. Right now it just says that Israel denies accusations that it uses the weapon which reduces collateral damage. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there's an article for DIMEs via the Dense Inert Metal Explosive link in the article with some details. Let's keep details in there to save space. 125.27.64.9 (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention of UN resolution in intro

Surely this, if put in such a prominent place, should be followed by noting that it was completely ignored and the fighting continued. Otherwise it implies that the fighting did stop then.

Since it was ingnored, perhaps it shouldn;t even be in the intro.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Where does this go?

'According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, more than 22,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed' [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5545939.ece Gaza faces scenes of destruction as Israel withdraws,’ The Times January 19, 2009]?