Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 - talk05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 - talk05:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.[reply]
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.
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.
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.' [7], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 willignite 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [[8]] - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nope, it isn't explicitly. There is one treaty - of which Israel is not a signatory - explicitly banning WP in civilian areas (it all started with Russian use of WP in Grozny), and most human rights organizations interpret the Geneva Convention's "do not harm civilians" as meaning that WP shouldn't be used. It might be seen as a moral war crime by some, but it is not a legal war crime.--Cerejota (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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." [[10]] Hosni Mubarak warned that "the Persians are trying to devour the Arab states." [[11]] 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." [[12]] "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."[[13]] 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. [[14]]
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. Tiamuttalk00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is to merely add another 'villain' in this story, since Iran is public enemy number 1 in the eyes of some, it will make it look as if Israel is fighting a bigger foe, which in itself makes it possible that Israel is fighting a proxy war as well against Iran through Palestine. This is best be left off, specially since Hamas gets its rockets "from" Egypt, and that being the reason why the border with Palestine is closed off at this time. Cryptonio (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [[15]] also read the statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that frames the conflict as one with Iran's foundation for power. [[16]] Doright (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Remedy for documented [WP:POV] violation
This section suggests a remedy for and further documents an ongoing violation of policy WP:NPOV
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, [[17]] . . . " Doright (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Additionally, the Prime Minister of Israel and Dr. Ledeen seem to be expressing a similar POV. Prime Minister of Israel says: "Hamas in Gaza was built by Iran as a foundation for power, and is backed through funding, through training and through the provision of advanced weapons. Iran, which strives for regional hegemony, tried to replicate the methods used by Hizbullah in Lebanon in the Gaza Strip as well. Iran and Hamas mistook the restraint Israel exercised as weakness. They were mistaken. They were surprised." [1]Doright (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ledeen is prominent, highly educated, and totally biased. He was until the mid 70s, a serious historian. His past since then, certainly in Italy, is notorious for its instrumental use of disinformatsia, fabricated by him and people who have been criminally indicted for their manipulations, is well known. He is an polemical extremist. If you want details, I can give them.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, what Doright keeps referencing as a policy WP:POV is an essay, the policy, which you would be violating by introducing an editorial statement as fact in the opening sentence giving undue weight to some guy who has been involved in forgery, is in fact WP:NPOV. Please go read it before making any more ridiculous assertions. Nableezy (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to violate policy. ""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies." "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." see WP:NPOV. Nableezy and Nishidani, you both are knowingly violating this policy and attempt to justify your violation by enforcing your own views about the [WP:RS] source's potential bias. This only further demonstrates your own bias and your refusal to follow policy. By the way, the Prime Minister of Israel said the same thing as Dr. Ledeen. According to your criteria, the Prime Minister of Israel is not a reliable source either because he is biased against your POV and has been accused of most everything that one can imagine. Doright (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the speech you reference the word Iran shows up exactly 4 times. The speech contains 2,452 words. That you think 2 throwaway lines in a speech that long somehow deserves mention in the lead is NPOV demonstrates a lack of understanding of what NPOV says. That you further try to back up this statement with an editorial shows a lack of judgment. And again, you need consensus to add this to the lead, if you can get that then go ahead. But you do not have consensus to do so, so please refrain from vandalizing this article because it doesn't match up with your world view. Nableezy (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see on the one hand an editor named Nishidani says Dr. Ledeen is a known liar and not a reliable source and therefore can not be cited as a source in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Dr Ledeen has been a senior Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for many years. He is also a contributing editor at National Review Online. He has 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. Furthermore, Dr. Ledeen provides links to his references in the cited article. And his thesis is supported by the Prime Minister of Israel himself. The Prime Minister said, "Iran, which strives for REGIONAL HEGEMONY, tried to replicate the methods used by Hizbullah in Lebanon IN THE GAZA STRIP as well. You are disrupting the Wikipedia project.Doright (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [18] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.VRtalk23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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?BobaFett8523:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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":
–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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This article from Australia [19] 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 [20] 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)[reply]
And this article from the UK Telegraph[21] : "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)[reply]
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.[22]VRtalk05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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.VRtalk05:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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." [23] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?VRtalk20:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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[24] 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).VRtalk06:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.VRtalk07:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.VRtalk20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't know why you don't respond to my simple concern: what makes you think the IDF included 138 or 170 policemen in the 400-650 figure? What if they included, say, 90 policemen dead? My claims are justified, because IDF numbers on civilians have contradicted the PCHR number of civilians by a wide margin.VRtalk17:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both me and Nableezy have told you are reasoning why the IDF included the cops, but you don't want to listen. Also, as it is now, since I put Militants and policemen: 400-650, there is actualy almost no margine of error. We have got 400-650 militants and policemen stated by the IDF and 844 civilians by the Palestinians. If we would look at the lower number given by the IDF, 400 (which I think is the more correct one), and sum it up with the 844 civilians that would make a total of 1,244 people, which is preaty much almost the same number given by the Palestinians themselves. As far as your proposal, I have noted in the notes section the cops, why are you so much insisting that they be in the main part of the infobox, I already put Militants and policemen.BobaFett85 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think the main point is that we do not know how many police the IDF are counting because they are not distinguishing between police and militants. They are not providing a number for the police killed, they are only identifying them as Hamas operatives. That said, if the number for the IDF is included, i think we have to say (includes police) without quantification for the number of police. On a separate line, we have the number of police according to whoever is saying whatever the number is. Is that not reasonable? Nableezy (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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."
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)[reply]
'Nice to see the ceasefire deal "doesnt involve Hamas'Superpie
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 MinisterYitzhak 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)[reply]
Ah, what a way to slip in "I know many of you consider Palestinian sub-human". Golda Meir's quote doesn't say it, you made the connotation, and then you blame Israelis (I presume) for considering people as sub-humans. This is some nasty propoganda. --Nezek (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 davidtattoo 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)[reply]
I believe the correct term is: I shat bricks. :D That picture also made the rounds in the blogsphere:[25], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To be honest, I see absolutely zero common ground. In the eyes of a Russian nationalist like yourself, the Orthodox Putin's murder of hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Muslim civilians in Chechyna and hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Catholic civilians in Gerogia is 100% morally acceptable "self-defense". But Israel's actions doing a similiar thing is "genocide"? Can you not see that whether or not a military cause qualifies is completely and utterly arbitrary? What you call "self-defense", I call imperialist neo-Czar Russian agression against its neighbors. What I call "self-defense", you call colonial Zionist agression. It is in the eye of the beholder. The Squicks (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
All articles I am familiar with in this area have a brief background article, whose details are covered more substantially on main pages to which the section is linked. I fail to see why we should make an exception here. Off the top of my head.
'In 1967 Israel wrested control of Gaza from Egypt, the occupying power since 48. One third of the Strip was subject to settlement and military zones, until Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal in 2005. The PNA, Israel's partner in the Oslo negotiations, lost control to in the muncipal elections of 2006. A partial blockade, in place since 2001 (Al-Aqsa intifada), was tightened after a failed coup by Fatah, which led to a strengthening of Hamas, which Israel, the US and Europe regarded as a terrorist organization. A low-intensity war ensued between Hamas and the IDF until a truce in June 2008, in which Hamas undertook to curtail rocket attacks on Israel in exchange for a return to a loosening of the blockade. Both parties asserted the conditions of the truce were violated. Hamas pointed to Israeli military operations against it on Nov.4, Nov 17 and the failure to allow needed goods in, Israel complained of rocket fire, which had not been wholly suppressed, and which ot considered justified Israeli attacks, retaliatory or preemptive. Despite negotiations to extend the truce, its terms expired on the 19th of december. Hamas resumed its rocket assault and Israel, on the 27th. launched operation 'Cast Lead'.'
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)\[reply]
You see, it started with the Big Bang! I gues my point is, background sections shoudln't be stand alone. Basically, the background section should address:
General belonging to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - so readers can go to those articles for background
Fatah-Hamas - SO readers can go to those articles
Ceasefire/Blockade/Rockets - This is the causus belli, no doubt.
Going all the way back to the origins of the Gaza strip as an entity is well beyond the scope of this article, but should be made available one click away (and already is) to our readers. We are advised that we write for people with a minimum of intelligence, and that articles do not necessarily have to stand alone. For example, in Media and the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict we do not provide any background, because it is assumed people understand the main article covers it.--Cerejota (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Imagine" is the operative word, here, Rabend: You would be amazed, if you could see the contrast between the image and the reality! But that is precisely the point I made above, my friend: the more ardent Z's surround themselves with threatening Images and make war on these Images, while reality, ignored and caught in the merciless cross-fire, bleeds to death. Anyway, my friend, I am not the one here who is isolated. One doesn't have to live in Wyoming to believe in freedom, peace, justice, and equal rights for all. (I AGF and welcome your comment as friendly chiding; still, let us keep the NPA rule in mind.) NonZionist (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am my own person and I only edit via Tomtom9041, I have no other accounts/sockpuppets nor do I edit via my IP address. I do not troll.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, so I've gone ahead and added Olmert, but how about Livni? I'm thinking now that she shouldn't be listed, because (a) FMs generally aren't listed as commanders (b) she's not calling the shots militarily. However, she is part of a "troika", as proved above. Bsimmons666 (talk)
I don't like the idea of listing Livni because she isn't really a commander. I don't like seeing conflict infoboxes full of politicans anyway but Olmert is at the least the head of government. I don't think that merely having influence with the PM makes her a commander. For example we can look at Jandrews example where Truman is widely believed to have been influenced to intervene in Korea by his foreign minister, Dean Acheson who is not listed in that infobox. Livni's involvement should be in the article however. But I don't think the infobox line was meant for that kind of inclusion. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The supreme commander of the IDF, the entity above CoS, is the whole Israeli government, not just PM. Unlike in US, where the president is a commander. So we should include neither Olmert, nor Livni, nor Haled Mashal. DefMin is OK, but not PM. Flayer (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infrastructure and property damage assessments should become more accurate in the coming days, suggest a new section under "Effects." RomaC (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number of Israeli army death
Addressing journalists with his face masked by a checkered Arab scarf, he said that only 48 Hamas resistance fighters were martyred in the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Abu Obaida also said that Israel lost "at least 80 soldiers" in the fighting; however the Zionist entity has adopted the media blackout policy concerning its losses there.
I think that most conflict articles usually present the claims from both sides. As long as we're clear about what they are, I think that's fine. As long as we feel this guy represents Hamas opinion, I'd include it. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the Article (again)
As everyone can see the article is too long for comfortable reading and should therefore be split.
The first thing that should have it's own article are the effects.
A new article named Effects of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict should be created with all the info added in it. I'm sure the effects will grow bigger and bigger out of our hands. There will be greater economic effects that should surface with time. So a new article with the effect named Effects of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or Whatever should be created with only the summary on this article. The Name should be discussed of course.
The International Law section should also be split into another article. The critics have now time to review the whole incident and should elaborate more in the next few days. Investigation regarding the white phosphorus munitions will surely be done and the article would get messy. So there should be a new article for reviewing the war or something but not of course "International Law xxxx", so the name is one of the problems in splitting.
This AP article gives some good figures for the infrastructure damage in Gaza:[33] "The first estimates by independent surveyors said Gaza lost nearly $2 billion in assets during Israel's three-week war on Hamas, including 4,100 homes, about 1,500 factories and workshops, 20 mosques, 31 security compounds, and 10 water or sewage lines."
But it is unclear where the figures came from so I don't want to include it myself. But if someone else does, I'm okay with that because it is probably important for us to get some information about the total destruction in Gaza and so far we just have the casualties.
This Jerusalem Post article gives a final count of rockets that struck in Israel at 849. It also give the civilian wounded as 68 plus 295 treated for shock.[34] It looks like the infobox is again mixing in shock victims right now. I understand why Israel would include the numbers but I don't think that we should when we have the figures seperately.
We're going to have to keep an eye on the figures used. The infobox still gives different numbers for women and children wounded (1855 and 795) than the article itself (1497 and 626). Although when I check yesterday none of the article's three sources actually use the 1400 number so I don't know where it comes from.
I also note that the Background section links the 2007 Battle of Gaza as the "unsuccessful coup of Fatah and succeding military conflict with Hamas". Maybe that's a fair comment but certainly a disputed one and not NPOV in my opinion. But I don't want to change it without mentioning it here first. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section still has the figure of Gazans without water as 400,000. I've just seen John Ging say that number is 500,000. I don't want to edit this in because the article has a few different figures. But here's the source if someone wants to work it out.[35] --JGGardiner (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big question is: should the image at right be included in the article?
Infant killed in an explosion in the Zeitoun attack [6]
There have been a couple discussions surrounding this image, so I'll do my best to accurately summarize arguments made by both sides. Note that proponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the first section and opponents of the image do not necessarily support all of the points under the second section:
Those for the image have said:
The picture accurately represents the fact that there were more than 1,000 Palestinian casualties, including more than 300 children killed.
The image is graphic, but removing it on that basis constitutes censorship.
There is little to no distinction between babies and children; the fact that the child pictured is a baby rather than an older child is irrelevant.
No other free images of equal or superior quality or worth are available.
Considering the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths is ~100:1, images of Palestinians killed should outnumber images of Israelis killed.
It is infeasible to create a "typical" image of a Palestinian victim, as the metrics for choosing what's typical can be arbitrary.
Those against the image have said:
The image is gruesome and graphic, and is not central enough to the article to be considered necessary to convey the article's information.
The subject of the image is not a representative victim; it shows the most vulnerable, defenseless victim rather than a typical victim.
The difference between a baby and an older child is significant and/or meaningful.
The use of the image is an attempt to moralize the situation, eliciting sympathy for Palestinians rather than simply illustrating the content of the article.
The source of the image is questionable; it may not be an actual baby and/or the baby may have died in an unrelated event.
(A combination of multiple points here) The images are tabloid-like and sensationalist.
There have also been complaints that some are alleging political bias where there is none.
All comments are welcome (particularly from outside editors). Refinement, clarification, and addition of points are also welcome. -- tariqabjotu23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add one fact, which is relevant and which has not been raised until now. The source of the photo, the International Solidarity Movement, has been previously accused of using deception in presentation of photographs, specifically to support their version of the events surrounding the death of Rachel Corrie. Some of the info is available on the two marked Wikipedia articles. The question whether the accusation was correct may become relevant should the issue eventually boil down to the reliability of the source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal if other image of unquestionably civilian casualties found, if no suitable alternative is found then keep - I am reversing my position although not 180 degrees. Jimbo's argument persuaded me to ponder the "dignity" angle more, and to a lesser extent the propaganda aspect. I find the arguments about moralizing, sensationalism, etc, to have little merit, and to a certain extent disingenious: we have an image in the background section of a ruined house that is not even connected to the events in the article, yet we see no objections from the same people arguing for exclusion: human dignity should be considered for all or not considered at all. We are not required to hide relevant content because it might offend one side of a dispute: we are required to give it a neutral context. I think the encyclopedic quality of this article is improved by having graphic depictions of the consequences of military action, regardless of the side. That said, if other alternatives are present, we can make an editorial desicion to go with those other alternatives to illustrate the article - because there is no argument that a charred baby is a strong statement with emotional implications. --Cerejota (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I further reverse. I assumed the picture was from Al-Jazeera. ISM could be a reliable source, but not in this case. Even if I personally disagree with much of the controversy, the controversy exists and is not a fringe thing. So we should have casualty pictures, but it shouldn't be this baby picture or any other by the ISM subjected to controversy.--Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image in the background section is, as you said, in the background section. Of course the picture in that section would be from prior to this conflict, as that's when background occurs. It's illustrating part of the casus belli for Israel launching this operation (although one might argue that this might be a better image -- but that's for another discussion). As for another picture to replace the dead baby picture, you may want to peruse some of the images at Commons:Category:Palestinian casualties of the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. -- tariqabjotu01:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with you that image belongs in the background section. That was not my point: my point is that the equal argument that it is propaganda could be made - and I find it invalid in both cases. Depicting the devastation and destruction of war is a key encyclopedic responsibility of an encyclopedia that can afford to do so because it is not paper. --Cerejota (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is inflammatory - I think its obvious that it is intended to be inflammatory, by both the photographer (or artist) and those who would like to see it in the article. In an opinion piece, or a persuasive argument of some other sort, to inflame or encourage a passionate response can be a legitimate goal. This is not an opinion piece, but an encyclopedia article. The purpose of the article is to convey information, and while there is no question that images provide valuable information I find the argument that this image is necessary for this article unconvincing. At the very least, practical concerns should prevent us from using this image. It is the most likely of nearly any image to provoke strong reactions in readers, and therefore the most likely to be a continuing source of dispute and controversy. Rather than put the article and its editors through that, and since the image is not crucial to the article subject, we should refrain from using it. Avruch T 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also have some doubts as to the origin of the photo, the truth of what it depicts, and whether it would be ethical of us to post this image with a description that takes a position on its origin or veracity (especially, and most importantly, without clear permission of whatever family might be involved). Avruch T 00:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i've been watching this for a while and i have always sided with inclusion of photos of palestinian civilian casualties, as that is one of the most notorious effects of this war. i also agree that there are many articles on wiki that show horrific photos of victims, both dead and alive, so concerns over the graphic nature of it didn't seem relevant. if, however, the photo isn't verifiable, well thats another story. i dont have much experience with the technical aspects here yet, so i'll leave that to the pros. i definitely agree that npov isn't achieved by presenting each side in a 1 for 1 fashion, as that gives undue weight to a less prominent factor. Untwirl (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photos of palestinian civilian casualties is hard to see but it should be there. It gives the hartbreaking true that war is awfull and civilian have been indirectly (?) massacred in a grusom way. Probably will bring the responsibles jail for warcrimes. The removal is without concensus and should be reverted. If the photo of the dead baby is claimed to be unverifiable it must be presented stronger indications first. Up to now its fair to use. Brunte (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support the inclusion — I think it can be agreed on that the graphic nature of this photograph is not a reason to remove it from the article. Images related to the Holocaust, the Vietnam War, and the Rwandan Genocide are also graphic. Unfortunately, the graphic nature of these images is necessary to accurately portray the respective historical events. Since the majority of civilian casualties in this war were Gazan children (according to this article), the image would fit within the context of the casualty section. As for the source, I do wish there was more to work with, but it seems certain to me that the image shows a baby killed in Gaza during this war. Additionally, I also think it is ridiculous to cast a leery eye on to the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). User: Jalapenos do exist previously mentioned that the ISM has used photographs to misrepresent events, but this is totally irrelevant since we are not including the circumstances surrounding the infant’s death other than he or she was killed as a result of Israeli military activity in Gaza, which is a more than reasonable assertion.
I would also like to specifically address Avruch’s concerns. I would question the relevance of the photographer’s intent in taking this picture, since it does not alter what is being portrayed. Furthermore I see nothing that would suggest the image is fraudulent or that the image does not originate from Gaza. Lastly, I do think it is unfortunate that there is no way to ensure that there was family consent, but this too is irrelevant as there is nothing from precluding such images in the official Wikipedia policy. – Zntrip02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another user Tundrabuggy reverted without discussion. What to do. Can someon act? Reverting on ground of non concensus when not building concensus in any direction seems close to vandalism in this situation Brunte (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He and brewcrewer think that there is some sort of discussion on the Al-jazeera photos, who is going to be the one to let them know that the discussions are a figment of their imagination? Not me, I had enough. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not going to comment on this particular picture this time or discuss ISM or dignity issues (apart from to say that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is presumably the ultimate guideline here) but I would like to say the following. Are we all sure that the dispute about this image is really about this image ? I wonder what would happen if all of the people who object to this particular image were to give a commitment that including one or more graphic images of Palestinian dead and/or injured is necessary for this article and that they would not object to their inclusion in principal even if the image were a child. It might make a big difference. I'll also add that statements like "I think its obvious that it is intended to be inflammatory" aren't helpful. I'm not going to spell out why they aren't helpful. It should be obvious, unlike people's intentions. Sean.hoyland - talk02:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: IMO the image is unnecessarily sensationalistic, i.e. it can be reasonably expected that an average reader will have an unusual reaction to the picture. In principle I'm against removing pictures on the basis of content, but that assumes that the picture's subject matter itself is the only thing being disputed—here the image has more than that, and it smells like that the image is trying to ride the coat-tails of an anti-censorship argument, since the idea that young people are being hurt can be expressed equally well by a different image. Note that I haven't appealed to the actual subject matter this article talks about… 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) PS: It seems that my concern is the same as Avruch's above. Might I add, that even if others have been doing some gymnastics with other pictures, this picture possesses its own "objectionability" (in the sense of "it is able to be described as objectionable") and that objectionability is the only thing that should be discussed. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that a picture like this is seen as requiring a speedy response. That discussion seemed to go on for ever. [Opinion time: I'm all for not doing anything in the case of no consensus but discussions on this subject in particular seem to be poisoned by the idea that one's obligations from their opinion on the issue extend also to Wikipedia articles. If this article was about a non-personal/technical/abstract historical topic then I have a very good feeling that less attention would be paid and the image would probably have been removed a long time ago.] 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At this point I really don't care what happens with this pic. I should not have uploaded it in the first place since pictures of casualties Palestinian casualties are not accepted. It is strange that in a culture that glorifies killing in horror movies and video games, people find this image offensive and inflammatory. FYI, I find horror movies disturbing and I would never watch them and strangely I grew up in the US with friends and brothers who like this stuff. Maybe it's the culture that contributes to their and others' disconnect. It's what leads people in the cyberworld and in the real world to say that the killing of Gazans is for the greater good because the Israelis are doing the right thing, the Gazans can take it. I guess it would be wrong for us to let these people see an image like this, it might actually persuade them into thinking that this assault is anything other than a game of shooting the bad guys, what's worse is that by seeing this image, they might see that children, who remind them of their own children and siblings, are victims too, 1/3 of the victims to be exact. I guess I will have to end my efforts behind the inclusion of the dead infant image now. But all this is not going to keep me from uploading other pictures to the commons, they can be used in other Wikipedias, as the Wikipedians there are not afraid to show reality. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment In fact, there were several other discussions relating to this image which have not been mentioned, here, here, and here. The third is a discussion especially relevant to the concerns about the photo's origin that lead to the comments made on Jimbo's page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pulling them up. The third discussion is a good one, and if retention was made on the basis of such arguments I'd accept it. Unlike the other two it makes no reference to the subject matter itself. [I read the wrong discussion. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)] I usually go for historical and mathematics articles where "personal opinion" … um … simply doesn't exist. The reason why I put emphasis on "no personal opinion" is because otherwise edits are coloured by the opinions of the ones making them (this is itself addressed in the discussions too :D), which seems to be the hidden source of the disputes in the other two threads.[reply]
As for the source of the picture itself, IMO it is irrelevant. It could come from major international media, a government, anyone at all. The only reason why source is important is to establish the point of view of the picture's taker. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for alternative picture proposals There's been an argument made that this picture is not "representative" of the Palestinian casualties in Gaza. Now that other images have become available (whereas when this discussion started there were no alternatives to the picture besides erasing it from the page) it would be see some alternative pictures that could be used, especially from those who have advocated removing the picture in the past. I'll go first. How about this picture that Tundrabuggy just erased from the page? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there pictures which don't show faces or skin? Perhaps body bags or tent hospitals or the like, which can still put across the idea of casualties? Showing a face invokes the whole human interaction/arousing sympathy thing, which does nothing to resolve these disputes. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't use body bags at Auschwitz or My Lai and despite that the images are fine for Wiki. Please, we need to get past these touchy-feely issues about blood etc. It's a distraction because it's a non-issue. Sean.hoyland - talk04:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my mentioning blood and skin is merely a consequence of not trying to arouse emotion. I'm not against picturing gross human disfigurement either, since there is a place for that (e.g. articles on what happened in Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 1945), and so I'm not against the pics for Nazis, My Lai, Japan in Asia, nuclear bombs etc etc. My disagreement is that in this topic in particular, the effect of the picture is far greater than just informing people; it serves to shape opinion on current affairs which I am strongly against. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "propaganda argument" which can be use equally by both those who want to include or exclude the photo. ("It's propaganda to include this picture!" "No it's propaganda to exclude it!") Personally, I find the argument to be unconvincing. Also, if you don't want to take part in affecting world opinion through this page, one might suggest that wikipedia is not the project for you. It has been said that "knowledge is power". Thus the absence of knowledge might be said to be powerlessness. This is a project aimed at empowering people by providing them with free, reasonably accurate information. Thus, we provide people with information concerning current events, sometimes through visual depictions of those current events.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd go for including/excluding images on a "case by case" basis. I'd support this image in preference to the "burnt baby" pic (sorry for being a bit too blunt) for sure. But if a different image comes up which may be in turn more strongly preferred than this (how? I don't know) then I'd go for that depending on the arguments in favour of that image.
As far as replacing the burnt baby pic with this one in particular, I support.
Strongly support User:Tariqabjotu. It is frustrating when editors like Tundrabuggy and brewcrewer so hardhaned try to move away all pictures in the discussion about one of them. IP 118.90.104.151, the third picture was a inside of a morgue. Brunte (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm...why don't we just put a big white sheet over the whole article with a sign saying "Move long. Nothing to see here" ? Come on, how does this image help the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This picture is mute about the objective reality of the event. It doesn't help a reader understand what happened. Someone wrote a good comment about what we should be doing with images. I'll try to find it in the archives. Sean.hoyland - talk04:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must echo Sean.hoyland's concern. This is an image of a sheet, not a body. I suppose we really must ask ourselves in this discussion, why should we have an image of a body, especially a graphic image. The answer I think is that it conveys the stark reality of death that has occurred. But, even more so in this case, that reality of death must be a widely accepted reality. Because if it was not, it makes it appear that we here at wikipedia are pushing one version of "reality" for some political reason. That, I think is perhaps why the inclusion of images of dead, naked Nazi concentration camp victims piled into a grotesque tower don't cause people to bat an eye (in the sense that they belong on the page). We have collectively come to accept that picture as an adequate representation of the millions that died under similar circumstances. There is a problem here with the image of the burned babies in that we have not collectively come to associate this conflict as generally resulting in the burning to death of babies, although that has obviously taken place at least once. I would argue though that if we are forced to pick only one image, I would opt for the picture of the dead girl's face for the following reason. It is evocative of the deaths of civilians (particularly children) during this conflict which has become a major issue in the worldwide press which I have no doubt has effect the course of the way the war was fought and ended. I can't actually tell who's under that sheet in the picture above so it is almost meaningless to me. It could be a Hamas soldier, or a Israeli soldier, an adult or a child.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify my own stance, I see no reason why only one picture of Palestinian casualties must be used on this very long article. I find the picture of the burned baby to be stark and horrible reminder of the terribleness of war - obviously this is opinion - and the need to resort to violent conflict only as a last resort. I do not see many valid reasons for why the picture should be excluded based on policy, but I do see some strong arguments for why it should not succeed based on aesthetic reasons, for example, that there might be more representative pictures. At this point, however, I continue to support inclusion.)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The girl on the picture (even though she is dead), she looks like she could be alive, and I think that would be a picture that people who don't want to see the truth about wars would rather have, I still think the burnt child is a better representation. — CHANDLER#10 — 04:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no matter what image is chosen, at least it will put across the idea of death, and some degree of "real-life-ness" has to be involved. I would be against a generic morgue pic myself; the overfull Palestinian morgue IMO is a good candidate. The only objection is one specific to the picture itself: that face pic is of a face and only a face. If it was like this (My Lai) or this (WWII) then I'll say nothing; to me a dead Palestinian child on the street showing the whole body or something (or even like this (V'nam again)) would be preferred. 118.90.104.151 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sadly YM above didn't read any of this discussion before chiming in, or he would of chose a different word than sensationalistic. The picture gets the article's topic straight to the reader. Wikipedia is not censored. Hooper (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not clear why you would say this. WP:CENSOR says: "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."if and only ifTundrabuggy (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove It's a horrible picture. People come to wikipedia to read the facts, not to be shocked or educated about war - to be made to feel bad. The photographs are inflammatory. The very act of feeling sorry for the Gazan, makes people look to the Israel with hatred. Enough of the world hates Israel already that wiki does not have to help with that project. Israel did what it did in self-defense, after Hamas and some numerous Gazans have spent the last several years participating in making life miserable for Israelis in their communities and homes and synagogues, ie murdering and kidnapping and shooting thousands of rockets and mortar bombs. This fact is woefully absent both from the article and from the photographs. Just perusing the article for photos demonstrates that the editors could care less about Israel's perspective in this conflict. It is all about bad Israel. That is not encyclopedic, but exploitation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's honest. Images of children killed by the IDF using US tax payers money are facts and they need to be in the article. Everything you say about Hamas applies to Israel multiplied by several factors. These are undisputed facts supported by evidence, much of which is actually in the article. If facts are inflammatory it's not Wiki's fault. We aren't meant to be taking sides here. Sean.hoyland - talk05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that you are looking out for the American taxpayers' dollar here? Mighty big of you. However, that is not particularly encyclopedic argument, but it certainly demonstrates your POV. That argument belongs in the American support for Israel article, not here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good one there, defending Israel for killing children... You don't get the fact that most people who think Israel's actions are wrong don't "hate" Israel just for hating, but because like now they've taken overly disproportionating actions. You're saying Hamas have spend several years making life miserable for Israelis, you don't think that's an reaction to what Israelis have done to them? You seem to be one of these apologists who can't get out of the bubble of "everything Israel does is justified", "everything Palestine does is evil". Both sides are fundamentalists, they believe they've been given that piece of land by "god" and will go to any means to get it, it seems. — CHANDLER#10 — 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You really should be careful how you are characterising others' words. I am not "defending Israel for killing children." I am simply saying that the inclusion of this picture as well as a special "gallery" of dead children, is an attempt to demonise Israel. Virtually every attempt in this article to show Israel's justification for going to war with Hamas has been systematically kept out of the article. This is an ongoing conflict and Hamas is responsible for many deaths of Israeli children as well. Israelis do not put up gruesome pictures of their dead children in order to demonise Hamas. But of course your comment demonstrates your anti-Israel bias better than I could. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only argument against inclusion that I have heard thus far is, “the picture is sensationalistic”. This is the reality of this war. We need to include images of the victims to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information. And to Tundrabuggy: your comments are not helpful and your credibility is doubtful in light of the unwarranted removal of all images of Palestinian casualties. – Zntrip06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you again that WP:CENSOR requires "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. (my bolds) Many people here consider this photo offensive and profane. Therefore it is up to your side to demonstrate that its omission would cause the article to be less informative or accurate. The actual veracity of the photo is debatable since it comes from the highly partisan group International Solidarity Movement with a link to another partisan blog. It violates NPOV, UNDUE as well. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other arguments, a particularly strong one is that this image is not representative of the casualties, that we do not have any reason to think a large percentage of the casualties have been babies. Others have gone with with, what I think at least, weaker arguments about whether this image is objectionable, or whether or not it is propaganda to display. But the first argument is certainly valid. Nableezy (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The validity of such an argument rests upon the acceptence of a baby category as distinct from a child category. That categorisation is implicitly derived from assumptions held by objectors. Babies are special therefore... No one has agreed to that. It's just presented as a given. To simply accept it as valid without challenge is to fall into a trap. It's a self fulfilling prophesy. e.g. religeous figures are special therefore insulting religeous figures is especially offensive. Seems reasonable enough at first glance but it is invalid. Sean.hoyland - talk08:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I agree with the argument, but it is not on the same level as the cries of propaganda and displaying objectionable material. Nableezy (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I come to this discussion as an outsider who has had no input on these articles and to be honest has no interest in what is going on in the ME; i sit on the fence on who is right or wrong in the event which have just transpired and the historical background.
People will be coming to this article to get facts on what took place not to be disturbed by such an image – does it even represent the majority of casualties that took place? The image is horrific and I can fully agree that it is being used to push a certain POV. One would also think about considering that children etc will also be using this website such photos are clearly not for all ages.
The defence that wars such as Vietnam have equally appalling images is no defence either. For example the Vietnam war article, while containing images of the dead, has nothing as horrific as this – the images on that article one would consider not to be as disturbing as this and could be viewed by all. The second response to this “defence” is that the photos from the Vietnam war, for example the girl running towards the camera after surviving an ARVN napalm strike, are iconic – has this photo achieved that level?
“A cultural icon can be an image, a symbol, a logo, picture, name, face, person, or building or other image that is readily recognized, and generally represents an object or concept with great cultural significance to a wide cultural group. A representation of an object or person, or that object or person may come to be regarded as having a special status as particularly representative of, or important to, or loved by, a particular group of people, a place, or a period in history.”
This comes from the wikis article on the subject - this photo is none; it is not a readily recognised image of this conflict. Photos of the aerial strikes or the Palestians rescue services etc are.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that link it also notes: "Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly" this image could, and would say can, be see as inappropriate and used for shock value.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I can fully agree that it is being used to push a certain POV." That would perhaps be considered a claim if the picture was a fake, which there is no evidence at all for, and no reason to believe either. Many people who have been against this picture has quite possibly wanted it removed because it shows Israel in a bad light, that would make it POV to remove it imo, trying to glorify or put any side in a brighter light than it deserves. — CHANDLER#10 — 09:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fake or not the image is being used to illustrate that the Israelis have bombed/burned and crushed a innocent baby - that’s POV pushing if you like it or not. To yourself and the above person who commented regarding not censoring the wiki; i come from the WW2 taskforce, that’s my area of interest - if i was to find the most offensive, brutal, distasteful, bloody photo i could find (and am sure there out there) to use on a WW2 article for a say a hypothetical war crime committed by the Germans would you suggest that it should be included? Would you not step back and ask from a neutral perspective how does it further enhance the article, how does it not push one POV (that being one side is a bunch of murdering *insert expletive here* for killing a baby etc), is it an appropriate image etc etc And if it is of a horrendous event, is it an iconic image that is easily recognised. It’s here where this image fails on all accounts.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The graphic nature of the photo when there is surely other photos of the dead, which can be used to illustrate that yes people have died during this conflict. This conflict had two warring parties and innocents on both sides – is showing one of the most brutal images one could find depicting suffering on one side helping to show a neutral point of view? Is it enhancing the article in any way – would I be better informed about the suffering, and that people died within the Gaza strip due to this conflict via this image?
Its a baby, an innocent of the world - pictures of which usually bring out the compassion within a human the "awww". Here we have something which is showing a cruel, harsh death inflicted upon such a being; how do you think a viewer is going to react to that in place of say an adult death? The latter you can somewhat rationalise - "shit happens" but with an image like this your almost provoking the viewer and twisting there arm into sympathising with one side.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to read the article on the jewish holocaust in world war 2, wouldn't I be provoked into sympathies with the victims? If I read about the 9/11 attacks in New York, wouldn't I be provoked into sympathies with the victims? If I read about any war shouldn't I as a human being be provoked into sympathies with the victims? In this conflict the victims are very one sided, I assure you, I feel sympathy with those on both sides who been draged into this and killed or injured when they wanted peace and co-operations between the both sides. But people on both sides have seemingly wanted war, I heard reports just yesterday that Israel had planned this war for over one year and with both extreme sides it seems wanting to exterminate each other, a child caught in the middle for me, represents this war. — CHANDLER#10 — 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The report is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You also argue the same point if Iran hadn’t supplied weapons or Hammas fired rockets this image would not have been taken? Does a single burned and crushed baby really represent this war? In years to come is this going to be the iconic image of this conflict? I somehow doubt that.
Your counter examples are flawed as they could be perceived as yourself attempting to compare them with this conflict, which would raise issues about your POV on this and why you are supporting for the inclusion of this article; as the examples highlight one sided crimes initiated against a group(s). I.e. the terrorist attack on the trade centre – that was not a conflict were death was occurring on both sides. A more compatible example would be the Anglo-American bombing of Germany and the German bombing of the UK etc
In any of those examples however do you think it is really appropriate to show a burned baby to provide visual reference, while providing a neutral POV?
In the more combatable example presented - do you think there is enough visual material of bombed buildings and mass death to provide visual evidence of what took place than a shock picture to drag the sympathies of the reader more into one camp than another? The most iconic images of the German “blitz” against London that I can think of is of firemen putting out fires, workers rescuing trapped civilians and an aerial view of the city from a German bomber. No crushed, impaled, mutated, burned etc etc babies!
With your comments one gains the impression that this image isn’t only being supported to illustrate what has happened, as stated am sure there are less brutal and more appropriate images about, but also as propaganda for one particular side.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection, I have to agree with the person who made the first comment on this part of the thread, and yes I have seen the Vietnam war image, I would like to say that the child/baby image is definately pushing for POV, if we're going to maintain WP:NPOV, we have to dig up a equally appalling image of a israeli child blasted to pieces by a qassam(or remove the first image altogether). Yours Sincerely Gsmgm (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No what would be NPOV of overrepresenting Israeli casualties? There perhaps isn't even a Israeli child who's been killed during this war. NPOV isn't about the same amount of images, it would be to have images that reflect the truth of a 100:1 death count. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say its more POV pushing to try and say Hamas crimes in this war have been equal to Israels crimes, when the civilian death count is 3 on one side and and over 500 on the otherside (now counting Palestinian males?). — CHANDLER#10 — 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The baby picture is not the best one we could use, one reason is context -- I suppose most of the dead didn't make it to the hospital. As pointed out already in this discussion, pics with the contextual element, such as this (from Warszawa), this (My Lai) or this (WWII) would better represent the human cost as related to the event. RomaC (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..and I think it would really help if objectors to the baby photo could indicate that they would have no objections to this in principal should such an image become available from Gaza. Sean.hoyland - talk10:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add Bombing of Dresden in World War II (examine, 'a pyre of bodies in the aftermath'). Whether or not this particular pic is included or not, it should be obvious that in a conflict where, to date, half of the victims were civilians, and a third children, images showing this kind of particular devastation are not unrepresentative. The 'sensationalism' lies in the reality. Generally, I think that one does well to survey stable wiki pages on events where cities or towns were bombed, to see what kind of photos have been accepted. Some I've seen are very gruesome. One should not determine what is acceptable or not acceptable, page by page, according to interests (inflammatory (an unfortunate epithet in context) or toning down), but according to wiki usage. What took place was, in tactical terms of combat strategy very similar to the Second Battle of Fallujah. However in that notorious article, the whole focus is on the US army's operation, with several photos of troops, and not a squeak about the extreme physical devastation on Faalluja inhabitants caused by the weaponry used, though photos on this abound. Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to step into the middle of all this and express support or opposition just now. But the last bit of discussion has kind of hit upon something that is bothering me. But none of the other articles I've seen mentioned have a similar closeup picture of a corpse, except for My Lai, and that is only in the gallery. And the My Lai pictures at least give some insight into how the killings took place. Most of the others have pictures of mass graves, etc. which again tells us about the specific conflict. I would add the photo of the policemen we had to that category but I know it is not available. Even articles like beheading, corpse (cadaver), murder and suicide (though it kind of comes close) don't have pictures like this even though it would demonstrate those concepts. Budd Dwyer doesn't and that article only exists because he shot himself in the head on tv. And I do hope that nobody decides to illustrate the Colombian necktie article. Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel exactly but I've seen thousands of war and conflict articles on WP and I was surprised when I first saw that picture included here. It's unlike anything I've seen on WP before. Just my thoughts. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with JGGardiner there, The image is way to appalling(and appealing to human feelings, thus breaching NPOV: specifically: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. that baby/child image in my honest opinion is just doing that, it is engaging in the conflict by appealing to peoples feelings instead of their consciousness). So unless we find a equally appaling israeli image, the baby image goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsmgm (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There do not appear to have been anything like such appalling casualties amongst Israelis, so requiring an equivalent image of an Israeli victim of this conflict seems a trifle unbalanced. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gsmgm, I have a question for you. I'm asking out of interest. If we were to replace this image with a reliably sourced image taken in Gaza similar to this (My Lai) would Wiki be engaging in the conflict ? If yes, how ? If not, why not ? What is it about a particular image that you feel enables you to decide whether it engages in the conflict or not ? I'm not sure I understand how you are making the decision. Sean.hoyland - talk14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion, at least until some other graphic material that actually shows what befell civilians or children is included. The fact that the illustrative pics have been systematically pruned, leaving only a few balanced snaps of skylines with smoke and rockets, in what was an assault of immense savagery when one considers that half of the dead and wounded were civilians, has tilted my position. It is simply not enough to have a bandaged kid on a bed. Personally, I would prefer photos like that one of the old man in a wrecked landscape in today's online Haaretz, or a panoramic shot of the rubbled landscape of the city. These are everywhere in wiki articles dealing with bombings. One cannot sanitise narratives of bombed cities, even when the city was part of enemy territory (Dresden, Falluja).Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from your link, Democracy Now isnt a blog, but a TV/radio-show.... And to counter, how can we include any information at all from Israeli sources (especially the government), they if any are highly partisan. You're against ISM because they don't give their full support to Israel, why should we accept comments from a highly partisan user?. there is nothing questionable about the picture, you and others who've removed it have no evidence to support claims that it's not real. — CHANDLER#10 — 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is, though I've mostly seen used perhaps in football articles... It's from all I know not a tabloid like the Sun or something. — CHANDLER#10 — 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ground invasion
On January 3, the IDF attacked the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque in Beit Lahiya after the evening prayer. Witnesses said over 200 Palestinians were inside at the time.[146][147] Thirteen people, including six "believed to be under the age of 18,", were killed, and thirty wounded.[147][148] Israel has accused Hamas of using this mosque,[149] and others, to hide weapons and ammunition.[147][150] Another three Hamas commanders were killed on January 4: Hussam Hamdan, Muhammad Hilou and Mohammed Shalpokh.
How do we know that Ayman al-Kurd is a civilian? Hamas so far did not claim most of its combats. The second soccer player was claimed to be combat by Islamic Jihad. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably you refer to the fact that I'm an Israeli citizen (though did not vote for current government). My point is that on Israeli side school teachers, university students, computer engineers, doctors and probably soccer players get drafted during conflict periods as reservist forces, put on an IDF uniform, take part in fighting and considered combats by all parties. Is there any evidence specifically regarding Ayman al-Kurd? Hope you could see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, however, I think it's fair to assume he did not take part in hostilities or that would have been mentioned by the Reuters source (or whichever one is used in this article). --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for seeing my point, Al Ameer son. I also see what you mean. From other hand Al-Jazeera English name 3 soccer players and claim all were killed in their home [38]. What would happened without Islamic Jihad claim, that one of the soccer players was killed in combat? Hamas has policy for not releasing names of its fighters killed in action. So fog of war remains on this question for some paranoids :). Does it sound fair? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The apparent Islamic Jihad member was Wajeh Moshtahe who is mentioned in the Al-Jazeera source. Just to be sure, does the Reuters source say the PIJ claimed he died in combat or if he was just a member/fighter? Anyhow, writing that Hamas does not release the names of its dead fighters in reference to al-Kurd would be OR, because we would basically be saying he was a Hamas member without having the vaguest knowledge on whether he is in fact a member. Al-Jazeera claims he was killed in his home and that he was a top player so that's all we could use when mentioning al-Kurd. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to u being Israeli (which I did not know), but more to point that I've heard comments from Israeli soldiers saying stuff like that different sides may count policemen as Hamas combats in many cases just because they're employed by the Hamas government I'm guessing. And just to give a example, in the USA where (stereotypically) everyone have 5 guns on their person at all time, let's say the USA was invaded by Mexico, or the Texas state government started invading the rest of the USA, who would count civilians shooting back in self defence as non-civilians? — CHANDLER#10 — 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pix
The edit warring about pictures made it to WP:AN3. Now that the rather emotive destroyed-Israeli-house pic is removed from the intro the article seems vaguely balanced, and I think emotive pix should stay *out* until there is a clear conclusion to the pix discussion above. The current state looks plausible to me. Further edit warring to include them, before the discussion is concluded, will be looked upon unfavourably William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Dynablaster undid my addition to the "Ceasefire" subsection. No reason was indicated either in edit summary or on this talk page. So I put it back. If there is any reason to remove it, let's talk about it. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special restrictions on articles within the Israel-Palestinian conflict
Reproducing a notice that any administrator (which I am not) can give to individuals warning them of restrictions on editing topics within the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
As a result of an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, all articles related to Israel and Palestine and related disputes are placed under broad discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. At this stage, you are only being informed of the existence of the arbitration case and that sanctions could be applied.
If editors are unable to focus discussion on improving only the article, and unable to refrain from insulting other editors, they may be blocked and/or banned from editing some or all articles within this topic area. Avruch T 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "Hamas" to "Palestinians" and "militants", since the sources so attribute, and since Fatah, a Hamas rival, has announced that it fired 102 of the rockets and 35 of the mortar shells. Note that the Fatah statement casts further doubt upon the Israeli depiction of "Operation Cast Lead" as a war against Hamas. NonZionist (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second problem with the section, however. It uses WP:UNDUE photographs and statistics to falsely insinuate that the Qassem rockets are a major menace and that the harm done by the Qassems is comparable to the harm done by Israel in the Gaza Strip. The section uses the same tactics employed by the IDF -- focus on the range and number of the rockets and keep the number of casualties buried.
I've been searching for an hour and I can't find the number of Israelis killed by Qassems since 2008. Few pro-Israel sources want to publish the information: The number is so low, it makes the victimology promoted by Israeli propaganda look ridiculous. Prior to 2008, the total number of Israelis killed was 13, according to the BBC -- less than the number of Palestinians killed in an average Israeli bombing raid. Yoram Schweitzer of the Jaffee Centre has described these homemade Qassem rockets as "very primitive missiles" whose "main effect ... is psychological" [5]. "It is worth noting that not a single Israeli was killed by Palestinian missiles between Nov. 4 and the launching of the war on Dec. 27"[6]. Shouldn't this information be included to keep the section balanced?
True, the rockets are the Israeli pretext for "Operation Cast Lead". But it's not our job to parrot or support Israeli war-propaganda. Just the opposite: We are obligated to present both the propaganda and the statements of reliable sources who reject the propaganda. Here is one such statement from a RS:
The official Israeli position blames Hamas for undermining the ceasefire. This view is widely accepted in the United States, but it is not true. .... If Israel wanted to stop missile attacks from Gaza, it could have done so by arranging a long-term ceasefire with Hamas. And if Israel were genuinely interested in creating a viable Palestinian state, it could have worked with the national unity government to implement a meaningful ceasefire and change Hamas’s thinking about a two-state solution. But Israel has a different agenda: it is determined to employ the Iron Wall strategy to get the Palestinians in Gaza to accept their fate as hapless subjects of a Greater Israel. This brutal policy is clearly reflected in Israel’s conduct of the Gaza War[6].
.jpg)
Resolved
.jpg)
Bodies at a morgue.
