Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)

Who was the war between?

The war was between Israel and Hamas, not between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Here are 132 Google news archives results from the beginning of the conflict until today for "fighting between israel and hamas". The same search for "fighting between israel and the gaza strip" yields 0 results. This is a proportion of infinity to 1. The same or similar is true for "conflict between israel and x", "war between israel and x", etc. The reason for this is presumably that the Gaza Strip is not a political entity but a part of a political entity (the Palestinian National Authority), and can no more be a side in a conflict than Kaliningrad Oblast can. Of course, to be even more precise, the war was between Israel on the one side and Hamas and various minor (in this context) Palestinian militant groups on the other side. I have no problem putting the other groups in the lede and the infobox, but saying that the Gaza Strip was a side in the conflict is simply wrong. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Israel did not wage war against the Gaza Strip. It waged war against the entity that controlled the Gaza Strip, Hamas.

Israel and Hamas are entities whereas the Gaza Strip is a geographical location. Entities interact with each other. They make war, peace, engage in commerce, etc. Therefore,Jalapenos do exist (talk) is correct. It makes more sense to state that the war was between Israel and Hamas as opposed to a war between Israel and The Gaza Strip.

As an illustration, Israel fought a war with Syria in 1967 in the Golan Heights vicinity. The war was between Israel and Syria, not Israel and the Golan. Similarly, she battled Egypt in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. The battle was between Israel and Egypt, not Israel and Sinai/Gaza Strip.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Gaza" and some variants are often used as shorthand names for the de facto state that Hamas controls in the Gaza Strip. We often use these convenient geographic based shorthands like Taiwan or even China for that matter. Or as another example, in 1967 Israel fought a campaign in the Sinai against a state called the United Arab Republic. But a lot people will use a shorthand and call the UAR "Egypt". --JGGardiner (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a defacto state called the Gaza Strip and Hamas is the government there. An attack against a government is an attack against the place, we can't push the Israeli MFA line that they were neutralizing Hamas terrorists, just as we can't we use the Gazan line that they were resisting the "Zionist entity". Two places fought, we name the two places. Also, many Gazan groups other than Hamas were involved in the fighting. Reverting. RomaC (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Roma, there is defacto lawlessness In Gaza. There is no state. No one recognizes Gaza as a state. It is a geographical location that is currently under the nominal control of Hamas Islamists, who take their orders from their paymasters in Iran and Syria.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On this one, I agree with Roma. There is a de facto separate political entity, the Gaza Strip, Hamas forming its government. Just to illustrate, it is quite possible that the allies in WWII fought against the Nazi regime, and not against German people or Germany, but since the Nazi regime was the ruling power in Germany, the war was against Axis powers, primarily Germany, Italy and Japan. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it not ironic you mention the Nazi regime considering the parallels of the Nazi war crimes in the second world war and the war crimes of the Israeli Defense Forces as was cited in the recent UN report? Additionally, when editing this article keep in mind it was Israel that behind the scenes helped create Hamas as means of hurting the peace process so Israel is not just merely acting in defense in hopes of achieving peace. Therefore it is fair to say this is an Israeli war on the people of Gaza, a people they want out of their "borders" no matter how illegal those borders may be, so that they can achieve the ethnically pour Jewish State the Zionists dream about. All this is at the expense of the innocent on both the Palestinian and Israeli side of it. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus among the reliable sources that the war was between Israel and Hamas, and not between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The rest is just our own opinions. I'm restoring the old version.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Jalapenos do exist (talk) I think that his edits are more accurate than the previous version and I support his changes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think that any such convention exists -- at least within the sources I've seen. I have mostly noticed that there is an awkward ambiguity between Hamas and the de facto Hamas state in Gaza. Israeli sources in particular seem to like the construction "Hamas-controlled Gaza". "Gaza Strip" is an awkward noun to replace Hamas but either one alone is a bit more simplistic than what the sources seem to say. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have my doubts too that I expressed above and nobody answered me. Hamas in this case is not a renegade group within Israel; it is even not a renegade group in the Palestinian territory (Hezbollah, at least before they entered the Lebanese government were), but the ruling force of the Gaza Strip (in the same sense, Nazi party ruled in Germany til 1945). --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is a decent analogy. "Red" China is also. Or the Republic of China for that matter. I think actually Bolshevik Russia is the best that comes to my mind. In the Polish–Soviet War the Poles could say they were at war the Bolsheviks (I understand that most still do), with Bolshevik state or with both. Our situation is a little tricky because in order to maintain legitimacy, Hamas carries on with the notion that it governs all Palestine. But if they'd made a UDI and called themselves the Islamic Republic of Gaza, I think there would be no problem saying that Israel was at war with the IRG. So I think there is no real problem that the belligerent was the political entity. The sources are just confused about the nature and more importantly the name of it. I think that sources reflect that confusion. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I showed, all the reliable sources say the fighting was between Israel and Hamas or between Israel and Hamas+other militant groups. None of the reliable sources say that the fighting was between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you showed that at all. As I said, the Hamas entity does not have an agreed upon proper name per se. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not referenced in the sources. It just won't appear in a headline. That's why you sometimes have to read the content of articles to know what they say.

It also not the position of either of the belligerents. I think people would do well to read the Israeli Forgeign Affairs FAQ on the conflict. One would also do well to read the background provided, especially this and this to start. As you can see, they go back and forth between Hamas and their political entity, just like the Bolshevik thing I mentioned above. Obviously it is most convenient for Israel to say it was fighting merely "Hamas" the organization but they seem to find it necessary and important to note, repeatedly, the political entity involved as well. I'd guess that it is an important part of their political and legal strategy in the long run. Obviously Hamas, as the de facto government, has obligations that Hamas, a bunch of dudes, does not. The Israelis seem to want to mention those obligations. I know some editors will probably think "to heck with the Israeli government and their claims" but I hope people will at least think about it. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not related to the name-of-the-conflict issue. I'm not sure if I understood your response, or what you were trying to show with the sources you brought; I would appreciate if you could explain. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't warrant that my ideas will be understandable. But I'll do my best to explain this one since you asked.

While there is no convenient short name for it, even Israel believes that that Hamas is both an organization and has also established "a radical Islamic entity in the Gaza Strip". Now there is no convenient name for this entity, like there was not for "Red China" (Westerners eventually settled on "China") but that doesn't mean that there isn't a political entity involved. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Very late response, sorry:) What Israel might call "a radical Islamic entity in the Gaza Strip" is the Hamas de-facto government in the Gaza Strip. There is also a polity, the Palestinian National Authority, and a territory, the Gaza Strip. But I don't see how any of this is relevant. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

lead para. of disputed figures

JJGuy's edit was not perfect. Neither was a fix of Jgui's. "The IDF reported that Hamas fighters did not wear uniforms..." - is simply untrue, this is not what JPost says. Besides, the "Engagement with Israeli forces" section cites about 4 sources unrelated to IDF or Israel to support such a claim. Next, the sentence "Further difficulties ..." doesn't cite sources (btw, int_law is very specific as to whom must be counted as a combatant) and as usual brings in the blockade by Israel, forgetting to mention Egypt. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that Jgui either didn't read the source or deliberately misrepresented it. Either way, it's bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that paragraph is an initial attempt (as I stated) - I was going to rework it with additional cites and changes but the article got locked down while I was working on it before I got the chance. In any case I don't think the sentence I added: "The IDF reported that Hamas fighters did not wear uniforms that could be distinguished from the civilian population, so that they were mis-counted when arriving at hospitals" is too far from the cited article's: "The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen." The claim I removed that Hamas ordered its troops to change uniforms is attributed to unnamed "Palestinians" and should certainly not be reported in WP's voice as JJGuy had done; if we want to include this in the article we need someone who will stand by the claim - I was looking for an IDF rep to make that claim but hadn't yet found one - maybe he can?

I'm certainly not wedded to that exact paragraph and suggest we can work on it here while waiting, but I do think that it is an improvement to have the intro paragraph in that section cite the range of opinions as to why casualties were difficult to classify, with both sides of the issue in an NPOV fashion. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jgui, the "unnamed" Gazans were interviewed by khaled Abu Toameh, the journalist who authored the article. It is a common practice not to name sources especially in places where such statements can result in death or lengthy imprisonment by the authorities. If you wanted to add additional sourced reasons for the problems concerning accurate casualty stats, fine, do so. But to misrepresent a verifiable, reliable source is very bad and totally unacceptable. On a positive note, I congratulate you on your initiative and efforts to clean up the casualty section.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, so this pro-Israeli Jerusalem Post writer somehow crossed the tightly sealed border into Gaza during the Gaza War and personally interviewed Palestinians, and these Palestinians talked to him about Hamas' evil plots? Do you really believe that? Thank you for your comments on the casualty section. Jgui (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked again and can't find a direct source from the IDF, etc. to attribute this to. Unless you can, I would be OK attributing the statement to the writer: e.g. "Toameh of the Jerusalem Post reported that Hamas had ordered its fighters to wear civilian clothing so that they could not be detected by the IDF, and that when these fighters were killed or injured it was therefore difficult to distinguish them from the civilian population" or something similar. It just cannot be in WP's voice, which it was before I changed it. Jgui (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Toameh and the JPost are RS. Btw, he is an Arab, often gathering info from Palestinian-controlled territory. Who knows how he obtained his material? Anyway this is irrelevant - the fact that Hamas had ordered its fighters to wear civilian clothing was stated by reporters who were in Gaza during the war and they are cited in the entry, so 1st half of the sentence could refer to about 4-5 independant sources. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's great. Please list the 4-5 independent sources. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New York Times, New York Times, Times of London, Los Angeles Times, AP Stellarkid (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Along with Trumpets of victory strike false note we now have five six independent sources that verify that Hamas wore civilian clothing during the engagement. This should close the matter and when protection is lifted, it should be prominently noted accordingly. Perhaps a separate section on the matter should be considered as the practice by Hamas of wearing civilain clothes not only caused confusion concerning combatant/civilian casualty stats, it also appeared to be employed as a deliberate war strategy by the organization--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, before the protection is lifted I prompt you to read the article (however messy it is at times). The sentence that says that Hamas wore civilian clothing is there. That said, the article that JJGuy found is indeed relevant to the disputed figures. Does anyone read Italian? - I suggest in the meantime to check out the article by Cremonesi, I think he said something similar, but I'm not completely sure. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs. I agree this is well sourced and belongs as one of the possible reasons for dead being hard to classify. Adding the second NYTimes ref should prevent its being called into question in the future. I would add it if I could, but we'll have to wait for article to be free to edit. Jgui (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps as a first step it would be useful to exclude racists from editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.18.89 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So we have consensus on this issue. Hamas dressed as civilains and this contributed to the problem of obtaining an accurate combatant/civilian count. I will be so bold as to say that there is also consensus on the table that Jgui set up. It cleans things up a bit. Do we have agreement?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not have understood the article specific issue being discussed here but whose combatant/civilian counts are we talking about being confused by civilian clothes ? Which sources providing counts have said that they were confused by this ? Combatant vs non-combatant civilian counts by the likes of B'Tselem etc were to my knowledge based on the standard circumstances of death approach i.e. was the person engaged in combat at the time of death not on what they were wearing. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

From JJGuy source: "The sources agreed, nevertheless, that it was difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman. According to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, on the first day of the war Hamas ordered its gunmen to take off their uniforms to avoid being detected by the IDF. The Hamas gunmen who participated in the fighting against the IDF were all dressed as civilians and the majority arrived at hospitals without their weapons or any other signs revealing their status as gunmen".

One of the claims against human-rights groups, particularly PCHR, that regardless of the circumstances of the death it counted many combatants as civilians.

As I tried to show you on several occasions, the "standard circumstances of death approach" should not necessarily be the engagement in combat, but the question whether this person provides "continuous combat functions" (e.g. planning, training, belonging to the armed group).

Speaking of B'Tselem, they applied in many cases the notion of "direct participation in hostilities". The term is not legally defined. They used the definitions provided by ICRC, but the ICRCs publication on the matter was itself criticised by many experts who participated in discussions - there was no consensus among experts and anyway this would not constitute law in itself. If other standards were applied, much more would not be called civilians. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of your/the HCJ's/JCPA's/NGO Monitor's various opinions on these issues and even the notion of a uniform isn't legally defined but my question was 'Which sources providing counts have said that they were confused by this ?' I'm interpreting the JPost statement "Various sources in the Gaza Strip, including medics, journalists and a few Hamas supporters" as a statement that does not include sources that provided counts being used in this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, when will you grow up, beyond HCJ/JCPA/NGO Monitor, and start taking seriously what I write? B'tselem based their definitions on ICRC publication; ICRC publication is not legally binding, and ICRC's view on "direct participation in hostilities" was objected by several prominent figures in Int_law field. What does A Dutch specialist or a German professor have to do with HCJ/JCPA/NGO Monitor? Those experts had agreed that civilians who act as voluntary human shields should fit within the definition (of direct participation in hostilities), which would make them legitimate military targets. This should go into "disputed figures" because this definitely affected the count.

Quoting again, "it was difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman" - this is what the source says, and I have to check out Cremonezi because he might have said something similar. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 08:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that measuring the degree to which person A is grown up by the extent to which they take person B seriously is a deeply flawed approach, I was being serious. I am aware of the various interpretations and I wasn't joking about the uniforms. I mentioned it because I read this interesting article a while ago. I don't recall mentioning a Dutch specialist or a German professor and I don't intend to get in to debate about what participation in hostilities means. So getting back to the subject, what I don't understand is "This should go into "disputed figures" because this definitely affected the count." Which sources that provided counts are saying that it definitely affected their counts ? It seems obvious that these kind of statements need to come from attributed sources within the organizations that provided the counts. We can't have unnamed Israeli sources in AlJazeera saying that the IDF had problems with their count. It would need to come from the IDF/MFA. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed interesting article. I'll take my time studying it.

Do you have problem with that quote from JJGuy's source ""it was difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman"?

Follow me: B'Tselem says in their figures report that they used ICRC's definition of "direct participation in hostilities". ICRC's definition was objected as too restrictive by numerous experts in the int_law field. So far I don't need additional sources. Now if I want to add another sentence that says explicitly that B'Tselem figures were necessarily compromised by the definition they used, then yes I need another source, and I will invoke Monitor if I won't come up with anything better. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, I already inserted it once, so maybe this point be expanded a bit: The authors of the report charged that B'Tselem's classifications of combatant and non-combatant status were "flawed by restrictive definitions." B'Tselem wrote that its classification was based on "a new approach" of the International Committee of the Red Cross ... . --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the paper - reading on page 12: "While there is a practice to wear uniforms in armies, there is not an obligation in international humanitarian law to wear them (mind “self-evident” remark). The wearing of civilian clothes is only illegal if it involves perfidy". Fighting in urban area in civilian clothes is perfidy - too bad you didn't forward the article to Goldstone. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The ICRC continues to define "civilians attempting to shield a military objective by their presence" as persons entitled to protection against direct attack. It states that the conduct of voluntary human shields "does not amount to direct participation in hostilities." And the Washington Times is not an RS to tell us differently anyway. 86.155.18.89 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

86.155.18.89, In light of your unproductive and provocative comments here[1] your comments on the Gaza discussion page are not welcome. This is a collaborative effort by editors who are striving to piece together a factually accurate, well-sourced, concise article. The discussion page is where consensus is built, differences are debated and compromise hammered out. It is not a forum for your deliberate provocations and gratuitous comments--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, to explain since you asked, yes I have a problem with the original quote (and I think you've already acknowledged and understood the reasons). To be clear though, my problem isn't related to whether the statement is true or false or whether it accurately or inaccurately represents the opinion of the person or persons making the statement. My problem isn't really even related to the context of the statement in this case i.e. casualty counts. My problem is simply that it is a statement by X about the problems Y experienced carrying out process Z when a relationship (information transfer) between X and Y has not been demonstrated. It's like an anonymous person (X) saying that Obama (Y) had trouble doing up his shoelaces (Z) yesterday. If B'Tselem or any of the other sources found it difficult to come up with accurate figures because it was difficult to distinguish between a civilian and a Hamas militiaman it should be easy to find a source in which they actually say this and we should use that source. This seems very obvious and I think you've acknowledged that. If on the other hand 2 medical doctors from the Center for Injury Prevention and Genocide Prevention Program have opinions about classifications in IHL and theories about why the IDF killed so many boys and it's included in the article I don't care. I think the information is worthless personally because it's unsubstantiated speculation that to my knowledge has not been picked up by the international media. As for "Fighting in urban area in civilian clothes is perfidy - too bad you didn't forward the article to Goldstone" that a) is factually incorrect b) misrepresents what the Goldstone report says on this matter and c) is soapboxing. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean, you're engaging in original research or analysis, which is something you scolded me over when I questioned the DCI figures. The fact is that the source is reliable and verifiable. That's the gold standard. Now you might have your own opinion on the matter just as I had mine on those bogus DCI numbers but as long as the source is reliable and verifiable, it belongs in there.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is my original research or analysis ? I don't follow what you mean. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I misread your last comment but it seemed to me that you were rejecting an RS based on your own assumptions regarding its conclusions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the Center for Injury Prevention and Genocide Prevention Program, no, if people want to include that it's fine. I'm not sure I would describe it as an RS since sources aren't an RS unless there is evidence to show that they are an RS but it's not making statements of fact so I don't think it matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Now I might be alone in this, but I have to say I like the article protection. I think that if we were to assess it with any detachment, we'd have to say that we've made a bit of a mess of things here. So maybe we should consider protection for a longer period. Let's be honest, when the article says it is "protected" that's not from Johnny IP passing by -- it's protected from you and me.

I think it might be good for us to put the training wheels back on and we can carry on this conversation but the subject wouldn't be the embarrassing article that exists but rather our ideal of what an article about the Gaza War might look like. Or whatever title we decide upon. And maybe in a year or two we'll be ready for the responsibility of a real article. Or we could start small with a subarticle or a footnote. But I think for now it a little break might be helpful for everyone. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe... The question is how little and who is to decide. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for article protection to be removed. I don't think it was protected from you two. It is an important article regarding current events and should be edited currently. I would hope some of the nastier issues, such as the (m word) should go to mediation. I have agreed not to edit it, and won't edit the talk page either for two months, if AGK would agree to unprotect it. Stellarkid (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is the "m word", Stellarkid?!?!

I'm trying to stay away from here and it looks like Stellarkid is happy to forget this as well. A big problem for a handful of us has been "MASSACRE". Is the next logical step to go to WP:RFM? We can recycle reasoning and make arguments and make all sorts of noise here but I think it is passed that.Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The m word is muddyfunster, a culturally sensitive swear word. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Who won the war?

Hamas failed in stopping the israeli attacks, so Israel succeeded in knocking Hamas pretty hard on the military basis. But Hamas got even more popular than before the war, becouse of this. So I think the results of the war should be changed into:

"Tactical israeli victory"

"Political Hamas victory"

"Both sides decleared unitareal ceasefire"

"Mostly status qou ante bellum"

Anyone who agree? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas got even more popular than before the war" - any proof of that (to my best knowledge, it might have become more popular in the West Bank but not in Gaza, but I didn't do any research)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas got even more popular than before the war?" I find that statement highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite is true. The civilian population was upset with the performance of Hamas and the way the military wing of the organization collapsed in the face of the IDF advance. Many were also upset with the fact that Hamas brought untold devastation to their doorstep by unecessarily provoking a war with Israel. I can provide RSs to back up these claims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamas didn't made it to stop the invasion. Therefore, I suggest that this was a tactical Israeli victory, but not necessarily a political victory.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Operation Cast Lead from the perspective of a Viet Nam Veteran: Tomorrow is Veterans' Day so I must add my experience to this discussion. The word WIN is for board games with strict rules, not for life itself. No one "won." Where's the victory in atrocity? People were massacred and Peace was lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navigaiter2 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

what a joke...

Post War Military Assessment

The war resulted in a tactical battlefield success for Israel and represented a significant tactical defeat for Hamas.[229][230][231][232][233]

Several senior Hamas military commanders and politburo members were killed. In addition, Hamas lost approximately 50 explosives experts[234] and experienced “widespread desertion” in the face of the Israeli advance.[234] A former Shin Bet deputy director who co-authored a report on the war noted, “Hamas had planned to stand and fight, but the Iz al-Qassam Brigades proved unequal to the task…and consequently they failed to match the public image Hamas has tried so hard to present of stalwart, proficient Islamic warriors.”[233]

In addition, the Israeli Gaza operation has greatly curtailed years of Hamas rocket fire, returning a sense of normality to Southern Israel.[235] In the year preceding the war, Hamas had fired over 3300 rockets at Israel’s Gaza periphery towns. That number dropped dramatically to fewer than 300 in the 10 months following the conflict.[236]

Defense analyst David Eshel stated “that the success of Operation Cast Lead in the densely populated Gaza Strip shows that an industrial military that coordinates operations among land, air and sea units, makes effective use of advanced technology, and shares intelligence and leads from the front can decisively defeat an asymmetrical enemy.” He further noted that “Israel used a variety of tactics to outflank and defeat Hamas in its own territory,” including, “long-term planning, meticulous intelligence-gathering, deception and disinformation.”[237]

As a result of its poor performance, Hamas has relieved at least two brigade commanders on Iranian recommendations. The organization has also decided to initiate a thorough investigation of the conduct of its men during the operation.[238]

or what a commentary! Cryptonio (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's going on with the article?

It is still protected but nobody is talking about the massacre issue which brought that about. Does anybody have anything to say about that? Or can everyone at least agree to deal with issues on the talk page? I know there were some topic bans for edit-warring. So perhaps there is not much of an issue now. Maybe we can ask for the protection to be removed? --JGGardiner (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens this source is pretty good factoid-wise. Military Dimensions: The Israeli Arsenal Deployed against Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 3, p. 175. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This too. Day-by-Day Casualties, Israeli Sorties, and Palestinian Missiles Fired. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 38, no. 3, p. 201. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. But the second source is very hard to read, perhaps due to the way it was scanned. The first source is very technical with some very interesting info from a military perspective. Has it beed cited or republished in another RS?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked nor do I think that matters in this case. It's an academic journal by the highly respected and reliable University of California Press, one of many they publish. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I don't consider that source objective. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve, sorry but your personal opinions are simply not relevant here. Please read WP:RS to help understand WP's definition of Reliable Source. Journal of Palestine Studies is a perfectly acceptable RS and can and should be included. If you question anything that is used from them and think you can add balance by including a relevant opposing citation from another RS, then you are free to do so and no editor here will stop you. Jgui (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The requirement is that a source be reliable, not objective. If objectivity were required, we'd have to withdraw most of the ones used in the article. In any event, Sean's right: an academic journal published by a respected university (system) like UC is always going to be considered an RS. Although, to be honest, I don't think the first article really says anything that I hadn't heard before. That shouldn't be surpring really because most of it comes from Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post and the Amnesty Report -- basically the same things that everyone here has been looking at. And looking at what I put on Cerejota's Cast Lead page, it also missed the SIMON breach grenade. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to exclude all non-objective sources from Wikipedia for articles like this, all journalists, politicians, religious leaders, activists etc and restrict it to sources provided by members of the National Academy of Sciences and related orgs. That pesky RS policy keeps getting in the way though. In the 'welter of conflicting fanaticisms', to use Russell's phrase, I think this source does a pretty good job to collect together the available empirical data. Yes, I'm not sure that the first article adds new information either (I haven't read it all yet) but at least it makes an attempt to collect the information together. That's quite handy in itself. Having said that, it does have the word 'Palestine' in the title and is therefore inherently unreliable or least that's what I gather from site's extensively used as sources in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, Palestine Studies accumulated and relied heavily on bulletins issued by PCHR. If this is the case, I don't see what additional value this paper provides. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You understand correctly that they used data from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. They used data from a variety of sources particularly PCHR and the IDF for the daily stats along with all sorts NGO's and the media. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection Survey

Okay that last section got sidetracked, so back to my original question, is there still a dispute here? I think that the protection is supposed to remain until we can resolve whatever caused it. But I think that may have already happened with the edit-warriors being topic-banned. So, I'd like to ask everyone:
"when the article protection is removed, I intend to:"
a) edit productively
b) edit war (identify issue)
c) other (please explain)

Thanks! --JGGardiner (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

C) other. I intend to replace the entire article with a redirect to Conway Twitty, just for the heck of it. But if that doesn't work, I might go for a). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to put the word Moussaka in the lead and/or a) edit productively. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My primary intention is b) edit war. It is not about the issue, it is about Sean. The war will continue until he admits that the Guardian is the most biased, anti-Israeli and unobjective source on issues of the MidEast. When this is settled, a) is conceivable. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous Sceptic. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is the most biased, unobjective source on Middle East issues. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The long and complicated history of the Guardian's reporting on Israel-Palestine issues can't be summed in a Steinberg-like propaganda sound bite or perhaps I should say Dan Kosky-like sound bite since he writes for them. Their reporting is the 'most biased, anti-Israeli and unobjective' source in the same way that J-Street or Avraham Burg are 'biased, anti-Israeli and unobjective'. They're criticised by both sides. Many people take the view that killing and injuring innocents is regrettable but writing a report about it is an affront that causes immense pain and suffering. This isn't unique to the I-P conflict of course. Those people can avoid further terrible suffering and hardship by not reading the Guardian or at least they should stick to the arts section which is quite good. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that any consensus exists at this article, and I do not support any removal of article protection. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course we don't have an article-wide consensus. We never will. But the article isn't protected for lack of consensus; it is protected because of edit-warring. Looking back on things in the year or so I've been editing this article (talk) I'm actually amazed by the progress we've made. We have the most difficult subject to tackle. Hundreds of problems have come and gone. "Gone" because consensus essentially solved them. It is a temporary solution in some cases but that's how it works.

We're going to have disagreements but as long as we can work them out on the talk page, protection doesn't really help. And in any event, protection doesn't help at all if we don't work out the problems that required it. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far I have not seen any realistic or practical solutions offered or discussed here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Solutions to what ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)...new editors won't know what you mean exactly. I'm not sure that I do either. There will never be consensus over words people find offensive. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Solutions to what?," was your question. have you taken any steps to find out what the other side's issues are with this article? If you don't find out, then there will be no way to show that any consensus was reached on those issues. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I asked people to formally define the decision procedure that would be used to resolve the last edit war. That didn't happen. No decision procedure, no decision. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not inclined to edit-war, but what to do when contentious content is aggressively pushed into the article? When editors only work to add or expand on content that supports one POV, and work to remove or relegate content that does not. Revert them and you get reverted in turn, repeat and there you are in an edit war. For example, there have been a number of other "Israeli Victory!" infobox edits added recently by an editor involved here, in other Wiki articles related to the I-P conflict. One can see that a zealous User can often prevail through sheer persistence. Honestly maybe this article is better locked up than hijacked. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are probably talking about JJGuy, but he recently expressed the will for the more balanced and productive way. And pls don't be so innocent, you're not so POV-less yourself, and neither is anyone who is working on the article including myself. This is ok, though, cause we're not supposed to be opinionless - as long as we agree to contribute in productive way. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The sanctions require all editors to edit in a neutral way all the time. Editors can't edit based on their preferred POV and expect others to fix it. That is not contributing in a productive way. If editors can't edit an article in a neutral way the sanctions make it clear that they should not edit the article at all. RomaC's edits and comments almost without exception address egregious policy violations and blatant POV pushing. That is exactly what pro-Wikipedia editors should do. It seems to be a commonly held view that neutrality is some kind of magical self-assembling emergent property that will appear through the actions of sets of competing POV-warriors, the idiotic 'pro-Israel vs pro-Palestine' view that flies in the face of numerous policies. If there were a large population of editors that might work eventually. With a small population what you get is something much more like a drift towards fixation where one POV eventually eradicates others simply because one side has more time of their hands. There's a good reason why the sanctions require editors to edit in a neutral way all the time. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

→Steve, apart for the unfinished "M" business, you do not seriously expect people involved to reach consensus on all potentially disputable issues in the article, do you? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 09:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, no I do not. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer you question, JJ, there are editors who are deliberately making it impossible to have a good article. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What Is to Be Done?

My feeling is that the problems we've had are mostly the fault of people editting too agressively and edit-warring. I think there is not complete consensus on this page but that is also very difficult to expect a meaningful consensus beyond an agreement to not edit-war. We should ask that editors who cross the line face disciplinary sanctions that we're warned about and the rest of us accept that an impasse in discussion is not an excuse to ignore other opinion. So here's my little road map to unprotection:

1) Editors agree not to edit-war
2) Editors agree that contentious changes will only be made as a result of talk page consensus
3) "Contentious changes" will include all disputes currently listed on the talk page. Including:

a) The following additions

1) any sort of "victory" in the status field of the infobox.

2) an upper case M to the "Gaza massacre" name in the lead.

b) the following deletions

1) the removal of the "International Law" section to be replaced with the lead from the subarticle

2) the casualty claims made by Hamas. They will also not be moved to the propaganda section

3) the claims that Hamas fighters removed their uniforms or wore civilian clothing in the "Engagement with Israeli forces" sectiom.

4) the portion of the lead which notes the "Arab world" name of "Gaza massacre"

5) the "Post War Military Assessment" section.

6) "Gaza Strip" as a belligerent in the infobox, along with the sublisting of "paramilitary forces"

4) Sean will make a good faith effort go to Israel or a nearby Jewish cultural or religious centre for Tu Bishvat and plant a tree. If he cannot do that, he must plant a tree locally. Sean will also be held to his undertaking that he purchase Israeli figs.

This essentially protects the "wrong version" of the page that AGK protected. But it allows us to make simple edits and to edit in contentious areas as long as we do so appropriately. I intended to include all of the disputes above but if I missed something, that should also be included. I realize that this kind of sucks but I think it affirms our intentions to edit appropriately. At the same time, packaging all the disputes together is the only way to get anything like rough consensus for the whole article.

So how does that sound? --JGGardiner (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Presenting massacre as a phrase or title used more often than others in thre Arab world or elsewhere is still a concern. The capitalization of the m is just a band aid and it has been attempted several times. People are blocked but the dispute is still there. I don't think anyone currently active has or plans on edit warring over it but it still needs resolution. As I mentioned above, I was looking at mediation for this. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

here's a resolution; don't use it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone does have some edits to make, you can request them to be done by using the procedure stated at WP:FULL page. So the article can still be edited somewhat. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is fine. I'm not really concerned as much about how disuputes are resolved but rather how we handle disuptes that are waiting for resolution. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

some of your requests include:

2) an upper case M to the "Gaza massacre" name in the lead.

b) the following deletions

3) the claims that Hamas fighters removed their uniforms or wore civilian clothing in the "Engagement with Israeli forces" sectiom.

4) the portion of the lead which notes the "Arab world" name of "Gaza massacre"

5) the "Post War Military Assessment" section.

6) with the sublisting of "paramilitary forces

these are all valid and substantial topics with real information. removing them only detracts from the article's content. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I said that all contentious content disputes must be resolved through discussion rather than unilateral edits. The merits of particular content don't really matter here; I'm talking about the process. I did not ask for anything to be removed but rather the opposite. In that section, I was merely enumerating all the current disputes which included those proposed deletions (3b1-6). All were made by other editors and, as it happens, I support none of those proposals. Although the Post War Assessment section might be okay with a major reworking rather than outright deletion. If you look above (and in the last archive), you'll notice that I quite vigorously opposed deletion requests b2 and b6 for example. I have also oppsed b4 since I made an agreement with Nableezy about it in early January and I then spent a long time whining that it was enitrely removed instead because other editors refused to compromise. You might note that I also opposed addition a1.

As I said, my proposal for the article was similar to protecting a "wrong version" of an article which means temporarily preserving one or another version of a disputed article, arbitrarily, while the issue can be sorted out. I'm basically asking for us to have a gentleman's agreement to treat those disputes (and future ones) as if they were protected so that we can move on with the rest of the article.

Let's not fool ourselves, disputed content is always partially protected; editing those excessively while the dispute was debated on the talk page is what got the last two editors topic-banned and the article locked up. I'm mostly just asking everyone to recognize that reality. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

JG, a quick point, regarding b1) the removal of the "International Law" section to be replaced with the lead from the subarticle, I didn't realise it was a disputed change so apologies if I was a bit hasty. I take the view that subsection text should be aligned with and dependent on subarticle lead text throughout Wikipedia. For me it's a practical way to increase consistency and reduce the chaos a bit by centralising development and dispute to subarticles. Of course I also take the view that individual expression should be crushed brutally and everyone in the world should join the CP of China to simplify things, so I'm willing to accept that my views on these article restructuring matters may be somewhat flawed. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what, you're right; I was wrong to add it. I compiled my list from a fairly quick scan of the talk as it was then. I think that I counted your discussion with Sceptic in Int_Law section (now in archive 60) as a disagreement. Looking at it now, it obviously is not. I may have been thinking of Mr. Unsigned Anon's point in the earlier "International law" section (also in 60) but either way, my actions were reactionary and I accept that I must be denounced. Although in my defence, the section title was a Lenin reference. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I think that it is really very simple. Warnings and AE for edit warriors. The rest of us just have to agree to let contentious edit disputes unfold outside of the article itself, hopefully in the article talk but beyond that is fine (DR, mediation, whatever). Is that really too much to ask? --JGGardiner (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And let me say that I understand the kind of frustration that Roma identified in the section above. A single edit doesn't have any legitimacy behind it beyond that editor's conviction. There's nothing wrong with undoing that with a friendly explanation. But when the reversion is reverted, he's right that an edit war can result. The appropriate response is to bring to the talk page and make your case. Then it becomes a community matter and no single editor has the right to conclude the debate. We all know that a simple reversion won't end the matter anyway -- it only exacerbates the problems. It is just a masturbatory indulgence, a fantasy that we have the power to publish the articles at the click of our mouse. I think that most of us are adults (or responsible children) and we can handle the consensus process. Maybe we should make a Gaza War sandbox for the few who can't so the rest of us can get back to editing. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is simply the set of edits which you favor? It does not sound like this set of proposals is the result of two sides having come together to agree on some set of mutually acceptable solutions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are big holes in this article - eg not a single mention of the word "disproportionate". The editor of the Guardian was threatened in his own office and told not to use the word by a member of the Israel Lobby (this according to the interview of him in the "Dispatches" programme, which is also mysteriously not mentioned here). And yet "disproportionate" is widely used by eg William Hague and Gerald Kaufmann in the House of Commons. And disproportionate retaliation against civilians has been explicity spelled out as a threat by an Israeli General and was reported again in Israeli newspapers while the attack on Gaza was being prepared (March 2008). "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army's northern division. Dahiya was a Hizbullah stronghold that Israel flattened in sustained air raids during a 34-day war with the Shiite group two years ago. "We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases," Eisenkot told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper. "This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved," Eisenkot added. Only Wikipedia could write an article on this event and not link it to an avowed Israli policy of disproportionate retaliation on civilians. 86.159.244.146 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Hamas also believes in unlimited attacks on Israeli civilians. What's your point?--207.10.186.150 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't write about fiction. There's no policy of retaliation against civilians, as your own quote proves. When an area is used for combat, it can be treated as such (read the Geneva convention). The policy is that such areas will be attacked, to stop their use for military purposes, and that Hezbollah/Hamas cannot hide behind the civilians, as they like to. But it has nothing to do with any wish to harm civilians. And anyway, even that is very limited - attacks have been aborted in a multitude of cases, to avoid civilian casualties. Even in Gaza, where Hamas hid amongst the civilian as best it could, Israel managed to selectively kill Hamas operatives, with relatively few civilian casualties. If you question that last sentence, remember this - there are about 1.5 million people in Gaza, and about 20,000 Hamas combatants - a ratio of 1:75. Even according to the PCHR (a Palestinian, Gaza-based organization), the ratio of casualties in Gaza was about 1:2 (491 militants to 926 civilians; the IDF's ratio is approximately the reverse, 2:1 for combatants). Even if Israel didn't care in the least about civilians, through pure chance it should have gotten a 1:75 ratio. The huge deviation from this shows that Israel made serious efforts to avoid civilian casualties, the exact opposite of your claim that it wanted to kill civilians.

Of course, if Israel really wanted to kill civilians, it did a really bad job at it - three and a half weeks, hundreds of air strikes, large artillery and armored forces, an infantry operation - and only a few hundred civilians killed? A single bomb aimed at one of Gaza's apartment buildings would have topped that, had Israel had any intention of harming civilians. okedem (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect logical simplicity. Well done Okedem.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I find all this quite unhelpful. Setting aside the fact that a set of people are not randomly distributed static trees and that human behavior is neither logical or simple because it's based on non-linear feedback, and that pro+anti Israel hasbara are frowned upon under the sanctions, none of this has anything to do with the article apart from perhaps 'not a single mention of the word "disproportionate"'. That's because the word 'proportionality' is used instead. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to seriously misinform readers on the International Law of deliberate attack on civilians and conceal the fact that this is the avowed policy of both parties.

One of the worst culprits may be Sceptic Ashdod, who wishes us to believe that it is now permissible to attack and kill civilians if they make themselves "voluntary human shields". To this end, he is quoting a notorious non-RS to make it appear that the Red Cross now agrees it is permissible to kill such civilians (and note the wholly unjustified abuse of another editor in there). That is not the position of the Red Cross, and deliberately attacking civilians is not permissible in International Law.

To allow a different impression to go into the article is propaganda and a total abuse of the editorial process. 86.159.244.146 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are convinced me is "one of the worst culprits", who "abuses another editor", make wikipedia a better place - take me to administrator so that he would see that I'm engaged in "propaganda" and "total abuse of the editorial process". --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 12:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

General complaints are useful for anyone. If there's specific text in the article that you think isn't correct, please present it here for discussion.

I didn't find anything in the article claiming it's okay to deliberately attack civilians, and I've seen zero evidence to indicate this is Israel's policy. I've seen the exact opposite, as proven by Israel's actions in the war, and as explained above. What might be confusing you is lack of knowledge of one of the basic tenets of international law in this matter - the Fourth Geneva Convention, Part III, Section 1, Article 28: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." Thus, when Israel aborts an attack on militants due to the presence of civilians (as it often does), it is, in fact, going above and beyond the requirements of the Convention. okedem (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. There's a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation for why Israel - while trying to kill as many civilians as possible - unintentionally killed a disproportionate number of Hamas members. People are not randomly distributed static trees you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect bar chart?

I suggest that the following modified image

should be replaced by the original one:

I don't understand why the modified version was created. Mange01 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history in the article. But it looks like the chart in the article is illustrating a section about the events before the war as shown in that chart whereas the old chart also includes part of the war which needn't be shown in that section. So that's my assumption. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I remember too. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you keep the image, the caption should clarify that the war is not included. That solution is okay, but I prefer that the image is replaced by the original version, to show a full picture of the background and outcome of the conflict. Removing the picture would be censoring the truth. Numbers and statistics showing both side casualities makes the article somewhat more objective and neutral. Mange01 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

→I will use this opportunity to express once again my strong opposition to this chart. This is not a car-accidents statistics. This is an ongoing armed conflict. To show just a number of killed, without breakdown of civilians vs soldiers/militants and civilians killed deliberately vs collateral damage, is misleading. We don't have such a chart for killed in an operation - then why do we have such a chart for a single preceding year based on one single (not most objective and definitely not designated reliable) source? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sceptic, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And again, it's not misleading because it's not leading, it's just numbers, it illustrates the lull perfectly as does the rocket chart and if it included traffic-fatality statistics for Israel there would be a hugely increased number of dead people because Israel's safety performance is quite poor in that respect. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, these numbers are different than operational numbers. Operational numbers show how many were killed in a particular event, which only tells us, partly, how bad that event was. But to aggregate them like this over a long time they show us the how the situation was developing -- essentially the context to the subject of the article, the War itself.

I do agree that B'Tselem might not be an RS. That doesn't mean that we can't use it, we just have to attribute it as we do now. But if a better source comes up, we should probably switch them. Although if we ever do find an RS they'll probably just be using the B'Tselem data anyway. Probably via Wikipedia of course. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! The time series gives a short historical background to the conflict, it shows how it is escalating. Especially if the war also is included (meaning the chart should be replaced by its original version). There are other charts breaking down the numbers into more categories. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2008-2009_Israel-Gaza_conflict_casualties . However, I don't like them since the historical perspective is missing. In one of them, the Israeli and Palestine casualities are not divided into the same categories, which may give a biased impression.Mange01 (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Israel's safety performance is quite poor in that respect" - this is an example of criticism of Israel that I fully acknowledge (I don't think Thailand's record is better, but that is definitely not an excuse).

We beat you easily in a traffic fatalities race. Thai New Year is a bloodbath. Go Thailand!...sigh.... Sean.hoyland - talk 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, where is that B'Tselem publication? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was compiled from this list.[2] --JGGardiner (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems B'Tselem has never been taken to the RS noticeboard. That's a bit surprising. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is taken there, don't forget to inform me, would you? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

→Quick glance at the B'Tselem list reveals that about 50% of that Palestinians in 2008 were killed when fighting the IDF; as for those who listed as not fighting, the list doesn't inform whether some of those were members of the armed groups (e.g. it is possible policemen were at the same time operatives at al-Qassam brigades). Those who were definitely civilians - not clear what percent got killed as a collateral damage. I hope there won't be too much opposition to insert some clarifying remarks to the chart. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the chart is there only to demonstrate that there was a lull in the fighting rather than to comment on the nature of it, given the limited scope of the article and that section in particular. But I wouldn't be opposed if you would like the caption to note that the figures include civilians and combatants. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli War Crimes

How people can even debate this issue is beyond belief. Israel is, and clearly has been for decades now, trying to kill off the Palestinians and or make life so miserable they leave in order to achieve an ethnically pour Jewish state. Gaza is more or less a giant concentration camp in which Israel controls what food, water, medical supplies, ect go in and out. Israel blows up schools, hospitals,and other public areas housing defenseless people. All this in "response" to the firing of what more or less accounts to bottle rockets into villages that Israel is illegally occupying. How the fact that Israel is illegally in these areas in the first place just gets thrown under the rug is another issue that completely blows my mind. This policy is similar to that of the Nazis. The fact that the international community as whole, specifically the United States and other Western powers do not stand up to and hold these killers accountable the same way the killers at Nuremberg were is a disgrace. I petition that wikipedia recognize the Israeli state for what it is and remove the propaganda that that Israel and US put out that make this look like a two sided issue. Israel are the aggressors its time wikipedia acknowledges that. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

sources, discussion > opinion, rant. RomaC (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In America and the other Western powers open "discussion" on this matter is not allowed because of the mass controlled media we are subjected to and racist organizations like the ADL. As for sources I could very easy find multiple sources describing in detail the racist and genocidal policies of the state of Israel, including books written by former US President Jimmy Carter and the book on the Israeli Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt as well as the official UN report that condemned Israel. However, doing this would not achieve anything because Wikipedia like the media will continue to counter act these legit claims with falsified claims that in this conflict Israel is merely this poor nation under siege that acts to defend itself. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the specific conflict, the Gaza War. So the sources we use tend to be contemporary to the conflict. The UN report is mentioned in the article and the lead (last paragraph). We also have a whole article on it, United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. But Carter and W&M's books both significantly predate the conflict and won't help us much. In theory they might inform our background but they are probably not the best sources for that. They have more use in general articles like the Israeli-Palestinian_conflict or Arab–Israeli conflict. More generally, you need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You should really check out some of the policies and guidelines, the most important being WP:NPOV. You should also know that you'll catch more flies with honey, especially in this subject area. Some users tried the vinegar approach here and that's why the article is locked up and we're not allowed to edit it now. --JGGardiner (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo, a little friendly advice. Any one as angry as you obviously are, should take a step or two back before editing. Eh, make that many steps back--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that ranting does nothing for the quality of writing, I don't see people outraged by the Holocaust being told they shouldn't edit. Nor do I see the Holocaust written as if the victims started it, the condition in which this article was locked. Another of the problems that moderators won't allow to be fixed was eloquently described further up the page here. The Dahiya strategy is official Israeli policy, and the article should reflect this. 86.159.70.117 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This entire section is rant. If you genuinely believe something is non-factual, or some relevant, sourcable material is being excluded, point to it so we can discuss. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

External links on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza

Under the section “External links” the link to the ICRC web page “Palestine” has been removed. Is this a mistake? Could you re-publish it please? The ICRC Palestine page contains various documents (texts, photos, videos) on the humanitarian consequences of the war in Gaza. In “News” visitors can view all daily bulletin and News releases that were published during the conflict.

I addition, a new update and images about the humanitarian situation one year on has just been published.

The link is http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine

thank you

22.12.2009 Taikah (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links: "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" applies. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the content and the ability of editors to summarize the information or use similar non copyright material (ie images) limits the uniqueness of the site. The link does not improve the article enough to justify inclusion of obviously biased presentation and there were too many external links.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The ICRC is "obviously biased" and represents a "particular point of view"? Thats just funny. Glad to know things have not changed. nableezy - 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Things haven't changed cause you got us locked out. But actually it is probably a bit dated for us to link to that particular page right now. It's just their general Palestine page which becomes less and less about the War per se as time passes. We'd probably be better off including links to a few of their relevant reports instead. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ICRC: "obviously biased"

The organization is the equivalent to a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia. Pushes an agenda and only focuses on certain aspects. Biased is not necessarily a dirty word. It is just the way it is. Cptnono (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what it is you are talking about? The ICRC is perhaps the single most respected organization in the world. Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages. nableezy - 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys but these sort of comments do suggest that some editors see only two sorts of sources: "Pro-Israel", and "Biased". Really, this is a problem.RomaC (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wandering by and I see that nothing really changed. a bunch of tag-teaming editors haranguing and personally attacking another editor.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No one is tag-teaming anyone here (the article is locked for God's sake). One editor is trying to paint an international humanitarian organization as biased simply because it says things he doesn't like. Some other editors are taking issue with that assessment. If you can't stand the fire, don't enter kitchen and start mouthing off. What's your purpose here by the way? Simply to harangue others whose views you don't agree with by casting disapragements?

I agree with JGardiner by the way (not about Nableezy :) but about the link. While the ICRC is a valuable source, thaat particular link sreves little purpose here as it becomes more generally about other issues. We should be mining thir reports though for more substaqntive inormation for the article body. Tiamut^talk 10:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. "Uninformed editors should not be allowed to edit these pages." by Nableezy and Romac's cute pictures are against civility guidelines. And I am not allowed to comment on other editors intentions but Tiamut is? It is not needed as an external link and they have an agenda. There agenda is helping people but it is still an agenda. How did this spiral into a mudslinging fest?Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And calling another editors remarks "bullshit" is not? Or making a pointed reference about "a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia". You should read something about the things you speak about. Their agenda is more than "helping people", the ICRC is uniquely qualified to speak about violations of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. But perhaps it is too much to ask that you do the slightest bit of reading about an organization before you write about it. nableezy - 22:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)