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

Splitting the Article

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

• Official Reactions xxxx
• Humanitarian Aid xxxx
• Civilian demonstrations and protests xxxx

xxxx = 2008-2009 Israel Gaza conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul

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

calgary

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

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

Opposition with current Map system/ key

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mention of protests but not of public reaction?

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

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

Map

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

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

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

Diplomatic action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For detailed diplomatic responses, refer to the table below.

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

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

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

Country Color-Code

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

Austria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denmark

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

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

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

Eritrea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kuwait

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

Lithuania

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

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

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

Pakistan

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

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

Saudi Arabia

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

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

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

South Africa

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkey

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

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

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

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

Vietnam

Green - Here is their statement:

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

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

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

UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countries that didn't make statements but appear on the map

I removed Bhutan, Equatorial Guinea and Bahamas from the map. They made no statements according to this article but were painted on the map.--Avala (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Avala. That must have been a glitch. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Partisan colours?

Countries which have condemned Hamas only should not be Light Blue. It should be a shade of colour which has not been used yet. I originally used Purple. I'm not saying that Light Blue means mild support for Israel, but shading it Light Blue may imply to the reader that it is similar/ associated to Dark Blue, which is a completely different position. We don't want to confuse the reader, therefore for this reason I will change all the Light Blue to Purple. Ijanderson (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should have tried to reach consensus, or at least discussed it, before making this change. I oppose it, because it makes the map quite difficult to understand, to the extent that I wonder, why have a map at all. In a conflict with two sides, there is an inherent connection between condemning only side A and supporting side B, so the implication that the two colors are associated is a correct implication. Look at it this way: we've had lots of arguments about whether a country should be light blue or dark blue, based on different interpretations of their statements; but would we ever argue about whether a country is light blue or orange? We wouldn't, because a countries are never borderline between light blue and orange. They are, however, often borderline between light blue and dark blue. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jalapenos. Condemning only Hamas is taking sides to some extent, though not as much so as overtly stating support for Israel. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention. The pink color really turns me off. If we wind up choosing something other than light blue, could we choose something less provocative for the eye? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok choose another colour than pink, but not a shade of blue. Ijanderson (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also there was never a consensus to change it to light blue, it was originally purple. Ijanderson (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ijanderson, please refer to the previous discussion. Jalapenos and I agreed that a shade of blue would be most appropriate, and there was no objection. So I think it's fair to say there was consensus.

Also, I must confess that I'm dumbfounded by your opposition to making these countries a light shade of blue. When two groups are at war, condemning one of them has certain implications about the condemner's neutrality. The argument that condemning Hamas does not in any way imply taking sides does not hold water. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should change to a 5-tier system, similar to what Jalapenos originally suggested. We should probably have a color for countries that condemn only Israel, and countries that support Hamas. North Korea's stated that it "fully supported Palestinians’ struggle to expel Israeli aggressors from their Territory and restore their right to self-determination." So there's no longer a fear of that category being empty. We could have the colors go as follows:

Dark blue -> light blue -> green -> light orange -> dark orange

Expressed support for Israel -> condemned only of Hamas -> condemned both/neither -> condemned only Israel -> expressed support for Hamas

Gray would still symbolize countries that have not commented.

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Better IMHO Ijanderson (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Is it me or are the refs totally messed up ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)