Talk:Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Hamas' command center in Shifa

1. So it would be easier to digest, I changed the wording a bit to 'The IDF probe discovered that Haniyeh and other senior Hamas commanders took over a ward of the Shifa Hospital...', directly from the source.
2. Go read Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Specifically Art.44 says that '...the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the words "Red Cross", or "Geneva Cross" may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments...'. A hospital is a medical establishment, is it not?
3. Go reread the ITIC report: 'As noted in this report, evidence exists of Hamas making use of medical ambulances bearing the UN flag and insignia, as well as the protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions (such as the Red Cross), for the transportation of terrorists actively participating in hostilities or for seeking refuge in hospitals.' You want the evidence? For example, on page 16 the report says that 'At the Israeli Cabinet meeting of December 31, 2008, Yuyal Diskin, head of the Israel Security Agency, said that some of the Hamas terrorist operatives had taken shelter in hospitals.'
4. Who exactly violates SYNTH? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, this seems to be a discussion/response with/to someone/something but it is only one side of the conversation. Consequently, I'm not sure what you mean or what points you are addressing. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Sean, this is for comrade Cryptonio, who acts as if he is the chief censor of Pravda. However, you are definitely welcome to revise the last para. in IntLaw section-Palestinian subsection regarding the allegations against Hamas improper use of protected facilities. Questions and reservations will be accepted and addressed here. Thank you. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing SYNTH about it Sceptic. Right on. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious whether non-Israeli reliable sources have published something about Hamas taking over a ward at Shifa. The reason being that I think the BBC had a guy there and I think Mads Gilbert was there wasn't he...and others I guess. Do you know ? That might help. Same goes for any of this material. I think it would better to base it on sources produced after it has passed through the fact checking/verification process of the international media if that's possible. How about a response from the other side for balance ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ambulances does not equal hospitals. Cryptonio (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And comrade Sceptic...i like responding to your puns and whatnot, but i'm not sure about the censor stuff. You've been told that not every single piece of information belongs in this article. If I were the one adding information, any information, you wouldn't know what to do with yourself. Not to diminish you any further, since you have done that on your own, but I guess i'd be happy to be chief censor than chief propagandist. But did you know I studied Joseph Goebbels btw? and had to memorize part of his speeches as well? There was this one that i remember still, right before x-mas...it is said that influenced the German public quite a bit in order to go to war. Fascinating stuff coming from him, let me tell you. Cryptonio (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please find the text that under Inter Law using civilian facilities to render them non-attack able or for military purpose is illegal under Inter Law. Right now what we have is the illegal use of ambulances and insignias. If we accept the current SYNTH as valid, all we have to do is then present the correct article that addresses the use of civilian facilities as military ones. And if the sources used does not address them(mention the practice) it will be challenged as well. Cryptonio (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The current Article 44 covers ambulances and insignias. It can't cover what the section currently states even if the ITCI report states that 'hamas was seeking refuge in hospitals. Cryptonio (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, if Hamas used the emblem on one of it's buildings, then it would violate Article 44. But Article 44 does not cover what's in the Inter Law section, that says, Hamas used hospitals. In this sense, Israel attacked other civilian establishments, that had protection under Inter Law, but Israel said it was for other purposes. Then why attack mosques and not hospitals? there wasn't a Red Cross emblem on mosques? Obviously, the correct Article here is, using civilian facilities for such and such. Darnit is this so hard to accept. I may be blowing smoke here, or maybe I'm tired and need some rest, but that does not renders me obsolete. Freaking read. Cryptonio (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My sister works at the VA hospital. It DOES NOT HAVE the Red Cross emblem. Does that mean that I can attack the place? Of course not, is not only a hospital, but also a civilian facility. If I decide not to take much of this crap, and start storing weapons in my house to go off on someone, and place the Red Cross emblem on a building to deceive those crazy people who decide to stop me, then I'll be violating Article 44. If I convince the head nurse at the VA hospital to store some weapons for me, it would be violating another Article that states, public or civilian facilities can't be used for military purposes, no matter if they have a Red Cross insignia or not. Can somebody please tell me how can I make this any simpler?

The text of using hospitals is troublesome as per Sean's comments, but I'm not saying it can't be accepted. What I'm saying is, that the wrong Article is being used as a SYNTH to cover what's not in the section. Stop freaking believing the hype. Concentrate. I could start challenging the name of the article if I wanted to. Concentrate. I'm not wikifan. Cryptonio (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio, these are accusations backed by sources that specifically say that it is a vio of intl law. We say that the IDF said such and such and that the IICT said that this is a vio of whatever. There is no SYNTH there, and the text is perfectly acceptable. Nableezy (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The text used by the ITCI or the ICTI or the SIM, specifically states ambulances and insignias on them, it does not addresses hospitals. It is more than obvious that Article 44 prohibits the use of these insignias etc. Let's get this right, those in charge of looking for information etc should get this right. Will continue to revert accordingly. Am I painted on the wall or something? Cryptonio (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Open the ITIC report already, go to page 80 and read that 'As noted in this report, evidence exists of Hamas making use of medical ambulances bearing the UN flag and insignia, as well as the protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions (such as the Red Cross), for the transportation of terrorists actively participating in hostilities OR for seeking refuge in hospitals. - it does address hospitals.

Open the text of First Geneva Convention of 1949 already and read article 44: '...the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground ... may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments...'. Why do you keep ignoring the word 'establishments', for heaven's sake? Now go on with the reading of the document to Annex I, Art. 6 - 'Hospital zones shall be marked by means of red crosses (red crescents, red lions and suns) on a white background placed on the outer precincts and on the buildings'. Finally, do yourself a favor and read Art. 1-5 of the Annex I. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you wanted 'the text that under Inter Law using civilian facilities to render them non-attack able or for military purpose is illegal under Inter Law'? No problem, Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Art.51-7: 'The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations' - meaning that use of civilian facilities (such as universities) for weapons development, and systematic use of protected civilian areas (including under homes and even mosques) for the hiding and storage of rockets, explosives and ammunition is prohibited; moreover, asking civilians to climb on the roof to avert the attack is prohibited too. The above conduct amounts to a war crime, see Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, Art. 8(2)(b)(xxiii). --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

→There's one thing Cryptonio is right - the misuse of protected transport amounts to the same illegal action as the misuse of hospitals, so I'm inserting half a sentence inside. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

An aswer to Sean. 'I'm curious whether non-Israeli reliable sources have published something about Hamas taking over a ward at Shifa' - I couldn't find any. Here are 3 pages, all cite Israeli sources. 1, 2, 3. Note the definition Bill Rammell attaches to Hamas. The same Bill Rammell issued a statement that The report of the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur is unbalanced and contributes little, but Mr. censor comrade Cryptonio deleted my attemt to insert it in.

'How about a response from the other side for balance?' - I couldn't find any, I mean I didn't see any attempts to deny the accusations or something. If you got one - be my guest. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now go and understand the information that you keep repeating, ignoring common sense. Did Hamas placed the emblems on the hospitals? was the emblems what they were using while at a hospital? without the emblems, did it prevented Israel to attack the hospital?. go ahead and say that you don't care.

It is obvious, that if I patch the Red Cross emblem on a house, that I use to store weapons, I would be employing the emblem and thus be in violation of Article 44.

Your SYNTH here is to say, that since the hospitals that Hamas used, according to these sources, had the Red Cross emblem, it violated Article 44, but the Article addresses EMPLOYING the actual emblems, meaning they themselves put the freaking emblems on the hospital. Since they didn't, your explanation is an attempt to justify your SYNTH. Now, go and look for a source, that address using civilian facilities etc etc, like you just did. Cryptonio (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That the ITCI report says this or for seeking refuge in hospitals does not mean that the actual Article 44 says anything about refuge. They are adding information, as they see it, or interpret, to the actual Article. And you are doing the same thing, by SYNTH, because at one point, both sources says medical establishments. But the actual Article 44 says nothing about refuge, and the ITCI report does. Does that mean we need to lower the standards in order to include this information? I think not. Cryptonio (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is that because someone else put the emblems on a hospital Hamas can use it for military purposes? Seriously? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

^^^^Lol. Wasn't Crypt leaving or something??? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Art. 44 prohibits to make use of Geneva Convention symbols (applicable to hospitals, ambulances, etc.) in ways other than indication and protection to the medical personel and facilities. Hamas leaders hided in hospital. Are they medical personel? No. Are they entitled to the special protection granted to hospitals (that must be marked by that symbols)? No. What is so hard to understand, Cryptonio? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously, no offense, from your last post, seems like you simply do not understand the contextual meanings of the words 'employed' and 'refuge'. I wonder what country are you from. And stop this practice of deleting entire paragraphs. If you want other editors to take you seriously, treat others with respect. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course that's not what I meant mr nice guy. It is obvious you don't like to understand. By the same logic, is Hamas using the hospitals because it has the red cross emblem? Why do I bother. That Hamas uses the hospital for military purposes is cover by another article, but of course you knew this already because I told you and the others alike.

If you want other editors to take you seriously? If you don't want to get block, like wikifan gets blocked every few days, I would recommend you not to worry too much about respect and try and do a good job in here. Contextual? reverting. Cryptonio (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I would have to numb myself dumb if I wanted to be take seriously by 'other editors'. Stick to the issue. Stop this SYNTH. Cryptonio (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no SYNTH here. The text in the article does not come to any conclusions that cannot be found in a single source. Please stop this. Nableezy (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion is not supported by the actual source, indeed it does not. The source when it mentions hospitals, does not reflects the usage of hospitals in the Article 44. This can't be that hard to notice, in my opinion. Cryptonio (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And really, there is no reason for you to revert, you did once and I reverted you. That you agree with Sceptic is all fine and all, but I think Sceptic can handle his won reverts. In final, I am not here to tell you what to do, but I am not either. Why hasn't wikifan or even mr nice guy thrown a bone to the dog? Cryptonio (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont really care what 'side' I revert, if you try to remove verifiable relevant information I will revert. What conclusion is not supported by the source? The sources may be wrong, but they support every word in the passage. Nableezy (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

But I do keep certain taps on overall accepted code of conduct. The source presents information not supported by their sources. We have included certain information that are questionable on multiple fronts. In this case, the source itself seems to try and misled, should we just read through it and not raise concerns? Under what wiki policy is that filed? Cryptonio (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual source that mentions the command center, does not include the Inter Law violation. That it is a seamless connection, together with the ITCI source, that does not even raise questions is not the case. And this is the case that is being made. There are questions. Cryptonio (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

→ This is definitely my last post in this thread, not for Cryptonio but for others who want to understand what is this all about. At the start of the war, this source and ICIT report cited Israeli official who accused Hamas commanders in hiding in hospital. Throughout the war, reports and testimonies of Hamas misuse of ambulances and medical uniforms emerged. ITIC report state that all the above practices violate several laws of war, e.g. Art. 44 of the First Geneva Convention. Irwin Cotler notices also that the above violations are war crimes. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The military is actually allowed to use the red cross emblem, on their military medical establishments, and those outposts are actually protected by Inter Law. And it's those emblems that Article 44 protects, not hospitals. Cryptonio (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the military can use the emblems, it means that when those emblems are used, the establishments being covered cannot be attacked. So EVEN IF Hamas were the ones who EMPLOYED these emblems on the hospitals, it was still illegal for Israel to attack this hospital because it had the red cross emblem, whether it was a military hospital or civilian.

It is obvious, that Article 44 and the ITCI sources refers to the use of uniforms by militians that carry the emblem, simply because they are not doctors, and even doctors embedded within the ranks, carry guns and can be legally attacked. If they were to carry guns, and have the red cross on them, they wouldn't be spared but targeted on purpose. Ahh, ain't this so freaking simple. Cryptonio (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC) January 2009 Hamas Exploitation of Civilians as Human Shields

p.80:

(3) Making improper use of the flag and insignia of the UN, as well as the distinctive emblem of the Geneva Convention. As noted in this report, evidence exists of Hamas making use of medical ambulances bearing the UN flag and insignia, as well as the protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions (such as the Red Cross), for the transportation of terrorists actively participating in hostilities or for seeking refuge in hospitals. Such conduct greatly endangers medical personnel, the sick and wounded, and also grossly undermines the special protections afforded to the medical and sick in times of armed conflict, constituting an act especially forbidden under the Laws of Armed Conflict: An early formulation of this principle, can be found in Article 23(f) of the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, under which it is "especially forbidden", "To make improper use of a flag of truce, … as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention." Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949) also provides that: "… the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground … may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments … ". Similarly, Article 38 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), states clearly that: "(1) It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or … of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions …". (2) It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization." Finally, it may be added, that breach of this and well-established core principle is also, in certain circumstances, considered to amount to a war crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.163.100 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be illegal for doctors to employed Red Cross emblems on them. We are not going to try and mix these issues just because it sounds coherent. It isn't, it doesn't. Cryptonio (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

'An Israeli official suggested that at that start of the offensive ...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.163.100 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

International law Israel subsection layout

I'm talking abou this again. If I've learned anyhting, drastic changes and opening up too many concerns about that section at once does not work. I wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on the layout of the section in gerneral. Not specific concerns, just layout. The occupation paragraph is currently separated from the Israel subsection which leaves it floating in a weird way. I also think we need to break down the allegations into seperate paragraphs or subsecitons. It is half done right now with subsections for some things and not others. Should we go with one way or the other? Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what Nableezy recently said: 'As far as linking, try this one from amnesty, covering relevant laws and treaties in regards this conflict: The conflict in Gaza: A briefing on applicable law, investigations and accountability.' I agree with you, and the AI report could be helpful here, to break down the allegations into seperate paragraphs or subsecitons. The same btw applies to Palestinians - the allegations against Hamas are not just rocket attacks, but human shielding, misuse of medical facilities and so on. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the layout, it could be like this:

• The principle of distinction
• Disproportionality
• Precautions
• Human Shielding
• Survival of the population, attacks on medical personnel and humanitarian access
• WP
• Clusters
• IHL breaches

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm "bumping" this so it doesn't get archived.Cptnono (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote most of the section, the last subsection on "Human shields allegations, medical ethics and UN facilities" still needs to be rewritten as does the Palestinians section. Revert at will, but I think my edit is pretty good (obviously) Nableezy (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

diff Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm particularly grateful you deleted that horrible sentence 'Since the team entered Gaza via the Rafah crossing with Egypt, it's possible Israel has yet to extend its cooperation'. The preamble now looks much better and easier for me to accept. The problem is that it is an ongoing event and I would be definitely separating it to distinctive subsection.

There would be a lot of work ahead of us, there's still a lot to be done, but it is good someone keeps this section alive. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

UN Probe

On May 29, the UN announced it had commissioned a team of experts to probe whether Israel and Hamas committed war crimes. Doubts exist whether Israel will be cooperating with the investigation. Although UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked Israel to work with the team, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that the probe had "a mandate(from the UN Human Rights Council) to find Israel guilty no matter what, they (the investigators) have been instructed to prove that Israel is guilty and we will not collaborate with such a masquerade". The team includes Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics; Hina Jilani, a human rights advocate from Pakistan; and Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces with expertise on international criminal investigations.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/29/un-probe-of-gaza-war-to-start-at-weekend/</ref>

I have three concerns here. (a) This is a program that just started, and its very possible that some of those people mentioned will be replaced or that Israel will do something in response. We should remember that Wikipedia has no deadline, and is not news. (b) This does not seem to merit an entire paragraph in my opinion, since that seems like undue weight. Maybe a sentence or two. After all, are Travers and the rest really that notable? Nope. (c) This paragraph seems worded in a non-neutral way. Doubts exist whether Israel will be cooperating with the investigation. is weaselly and problematic. Who expressed such doubts? And what is our definition of what constitutes 'cooperation' and what constitutes 'un-cooperation'? As well, this paragraph does not mention any of the context for why the Israelis would be skeptical. After all, this is the same UN Council that deliberately whitewashed the Darfur genocide while droning on and on about Israel. Even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted their biases. The Squicks (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If and when the program changes it shall be made public. If and when Israel says something else about the program, it shall be stated as well. Israel's response is included. It is more than notable that the UN has set up a team to investigate the war. Who will head the team? I couldn't care less. Doubts? "The fact that the team is entering Gaza via the Rafah crossing with Egypt indicates Israel has yet to extend its cooperation.". Will reword this, as to state Israel "has yet to extend its cooperation." And why in the preamble? because the UN and other rights groups are the only capable of investigating the war. It should be noted right before Inter Law violations. Cryptonio (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand Squicks's objections. Taking concern (a), if different people are appointed to investigate, we can edit the paragraph to say so. Wikipedia generally does not exclude current information on the basis that it may change. (b) frankly doesn't make any sense. Objecting to a paragraph about the UN investigation because the individual investigators are "non-notable?" An investigation by a senior UN body is undoubtedly significant and should be mentioned in this article. Excluding it because individual people involved are not notable would be senseless; do we exclude information about ongoing criminal investigations because individual cops or FBI agents aren't notable? Please. Not to mention that the lead investigator, Goldstone, is undoubtedly notable and already has an article here. (c) is pretty questionable; Squicks raises no specific concerns about neutrality of the paragraph. Indeed, given that the only opinion quoted is that of the Israeli government, one could make a case that the current paragraph is biased towards official Israeli views. His objection about "doubts have been expressed" is legitimate, but the sentence isn't biased against Israel in some way, and can easily be fixed. Or is he seriously claiming that doubts have not been expressed about Israel's willingness to cooperate, or that these doubts cannot be found expressed by strong RSs??

Finally, Squicks's plea to "mention any of the context for why the Israelis would be skeptical" is more or less an open call to engage in speculative WP:OR and WP:SYNthesis for the purpose of legitimizing Israeli objections in violation of WP:NPOV. If specific and relevant Israeli sources have linked non-cooperation with this investigation to UN bias regarding Darfur, they could possibly be quoted. It is not our job to make the comparison on our own, regardless of anybody's personal beliefs about what the UN's priorities should be.

To sum up, I see no policy-based objections in The Squicks's comment, just a lot of dubious handwaving and minor cavills. The paragraph should stay. If anything it should be expanded, possibly to sub-section level, as the investigation progresses. <eleland/talkedits> 22:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Squick is concerned the article will become a fork for an Israel = war criminal and I can obviously see the motivation to speed up the process. I definitely don't think a single reference from the AP warrants an entire paragraph. Perhaps Squicks could draft a better version because from the looks of it the current one does not pair well with what the source is actually saying contextually-wise. :D

• Note The above was by User:Wikifan12345.

In response to Eleland (a and b) Christine Chinkin, Hina Jilani, and Desmond Travers are not really notable in this context. I fail to see how that analogy about the FBI applies here. If anything, it supports my point of view. If the FBI is investigating a bomb plot, than an article would said The FBI investigated the incident. It would not say The FBI appointed Bob Dershiwitz, a two year staff officer from Northwoods, California with a wife and three dogs, and he then... My concern is that the entire tone of the paragraph is futuristic. How on earth can idle speculation about what Israel will do in the future as regards the prosecution be added here? Vertifable facts, like ("UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked Israel to work with the team"), are fine. Speculation is not. The Squicks (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

is more or less an open call to engage in speculative WP:OR and WP:SYNthesis for the purpose of legitimizing Israeli objections in violation of WP:NPOV. I did not say this, nor did I advocate this. Your putting those words into my mouth is close to being a personal attack. In any rate, I support mentioning the context. Finding sources for the context will be easy, since we are- after all- talking about an I/P topic in which there's so much material out there. But I don't want to insert a source and then get reverted 5 seconds later by another editor who would dismiss any context regardless of the source, which is why I came here first. The Squicks (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The AP story (from the Las vegas Sun) says that the mission is led by South African prosecutor Richard Goldstone. Is there a reason he isn't mentioned? I'm guessing the editor who introduced it probably just skimmed through the article and noticed the other members who are mentioned together in a later paragraph. But I was wondering if there was some other reason. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

'because the UN and other rights groups are the only capable of investigating the war' - now I wonder what planet are you from. Put it next to other UN reports, conducted by Mr. Falk. Is it the same UN that organized Dirban 1 and 2 and equaled Zionism to Nazism? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Meow, meow, I think Durban 1 and 2 equated Zionism to racism, not Nazism. Nableezy (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest update from JPost. Obviously, I have no objection to insert the info, but not in the preamble. I think the article almost has the info The Squicks asked about. Regarding the question of reluctant cooperation, see here - 'Israel has objected to the current investigation because the team has been instructed only to investigate alleged abuses by Israelis, though Goldstone says he will examine conduct by both sides'. Moreover, 'Israel has been at odds with the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council since its creation three years ago. It refused to cooperate with an earlier Gaza probe the council assigned Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu to head.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning (anywhere in the section is OK with me) that Israel has concerns with the Human Rights Council. We use sources from them and it should be brought to the readers attention that Israel believes they are biased.Cptnono (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources that Israel considers them biased in this case in particular?

One fear I have is that of using sources pre-date the Gaza war, for Israel's current opinion on Gaza War.VR _talk 19:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well there seems to be concern with the wording(for some strange reason). I don't think any 'serious' editor would remove the current wording without first attempting to fix it. But, if by objections that not more than a few lines are necessary, I don't know how we would achieve that, if we have to include all the reasons why Israel feels threatened by the UN. Cryptonio (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure if Squicks just wants to change the wording or remove the paragraph entirely. If he wants to do things like remove the lesser-known investigators' names, well I certainly don't object to that. Sceptic Ashdod has already removed the paragraph wholesale once, though. That kind of thing has to stop (and the same goes for Cryptonio removing the stuff about Shifa.)

The paragraph does need improvement, right now it relies on a single AP report and there's far more information available. (That would also quell the silly objections about "speculation" that Israel won't co-operate... I mean come on, if you've been following this at all, you know that it's more than "speculation.") And the Israeli quote attacking the impartiality of the investigators needs to be paired with a response from the investigators themselves - probably this JPost piece is a good source for the back-and-forth. <eleland/talkedits> 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Eleland, you seem like a nice antelope, so I prefer to make a new partner than to irritate an old adversary (even though Cryptonio will not appreciate this), so I won't be deleting the paragraph for now. However, I object keeping it in the preamble to IntLaw section. Do not see reason why. An argument like 'the UN are the only capable of investigating the war' is simply ridiculous (even though maybe Goldstone can). This is an ongoing investigation. It could be moved to another subsection, next to previous UN investigations, and updated. Next, the sentence 'Since the team entered Gaza via the Rafah crossing with Egypt, it's possible Israel has yet to extend its cooperation.' needs urgent treatment, it doesn't fit the norms of common sense and English. Finally, I agree about additional sources and I provided 2 examples in previous post. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well since Cryptonio is not sceptic, it is obvious we can't expect for Cryptonio to believe in the kind of edits sceptic provides. The sentence he is objecting has nothing wrong with it, English wise, and it's sourced to boot, almost verbatim. That more can be added, of course, but we should pay attention to that type of information. Cryptonio (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone's UN inquiry team arrives in Gaza —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.206.228 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Per the source mentioned above Israel believes there is bias and it is related to this conflict. I don't want to overweight it but since HRC gets so much play here it only seems appropriate.Cptnono (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably make an effort in emphasizing Israel's distrust of the HRC and this new UN "fact-finding" mission. Perhaps word it beyond "Israel opposes x, blah blah" if possible. I'm a bit lazy right now so pardon my ignorance...but is Goldstone's mission under the auspices of the United Nations Human Rights Council? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, it was ordered by the U.N. Human Rights Council. Israel objected to the mission ordered by the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council in January because the original instructions were only to check what Israelis did to Palestinians (Elelands source). Too bad Cryptonio is unaware of its bias against Israel. You know, it reminds me of an old 'anecdote' Dershowitz repeats pretty often: one senior university professor in the US wanted to expel the Jewish students from his university, because 'they cheat'. When someone pointed out that students from other nationalities cheat too, he responded 'you are changing the subject'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Headed by Richard Goldstone, UN war crimes investigators arrive in Gaza, spurned by Israel and welcomed by Hamas . --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll wait and see. We can almost certainly predict the results of the "investigation" so preparing for nation/organization responses should be a priority. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

UN investigator 'shocked' by scale of destruction in Gaza. The head of a United Nations team investigating possible war crimes by Israel and Hamas during the Gaza war said Thursday he had been shocked by the scale of the destruction in the Palestinian areas... "They should call us the day the Human Rights Council decides on a human rights inquiry on some other place around the globe," he [MFA speaker] said, mentioning Darfur and Sri Lanka. "After that, we may start to be convinced that they are not singling out Israel."... Goldstone, who previously investigated war crimes in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, said the public hearings in Gaza and Geneva later this month would allow the voices and the faces of victims to be seen and heard by the whole international community. He said both Palestinians and Israelis would be invited to speak in Geneva... We'll wait and see... --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

IDF Casualty Numbers

I noticed an article that google just indexed today but was written back in March. It has IDF figures that are higher than the ones we had in the infobox and Casualties section. I updated the infobox and was about to update the Casualties section as well when I noticed the other numbers are actually from the same date. So I reverted my edit to seek input. We had used this source [1] and I was using this one[2] to update. Are the numbers I was using just wrong? Should we stick with the old figures? I should say that several other papers used my numbers including the Telegraph[3] and the NY Daily News[4] for example. Thanks. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I addressed the issue here. You see, the numbers you found, stem apparently from the Haaretz publication just a day before IDF officially released its numbers. They say those numbers were published by Foreign Affairs, but I couldn't substantiate this. Anyway, the correct ones are the ones currently in the article, don't change anything. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While the casualty box should keep the latest numbers, the other numbers should be acknowledged later on in the article.VR _talk 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

'the other numbers should be acknowledged later on in the article' - no they don't. You are trying to give similar weight to partisan and unverifiable Haaretz publication (mass media) from 25th of March and genuine IDF figures released on 26th of March by IDF spokesperson. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We're not going to exclude figures from Israel's most respected newspaper on the grounds that it is "partisan and unverifiable" while treating IDF announcements as "genuine" by definition. I mean, get a grip! You might as well just suggest that we copy-paste our whole article from IDF press releases. Sheesh. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. it is not Israel's most respected newspaper and it has been criticized for being biased. That being said, it is still a source that should eb used in the article. This article would benefit from just using a range (there are other articles in the project that went that direction) since it would prevent editors from picking and choosing which sources to use and it would be more concise. Casualties: estimated a-b [lowest figure citation][highest figure citation] Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE YOU REPEATED WHAT I SAID BACK TO ME LOL FUNNAY

But seriously. Yeah I'm not going to get into some stupid argument about whether Ha'aretz is biased (of course it's been criticized for being biased it's a newspaper they all get criticized for that even the Hicktown Courier-Gazette,) the point is that numbers published in Ha'aretz and not retracted or superceded are suitable for use in this article. Doesn't mean they're the only numbers we can use, but S.A.'s position that the IDF Spokesman's Office gets to write our articles for us is completely untenable. <eleland/talkedits> 22:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of anything criticism, it is established that the newspaper is a reputable source. You might have been so doubled-over with laughter you didn't realize I mentioned something similar in the text above. Unfortunately, this article has historically been biased against Israel's positions so it is understandable when an editor wants to cite sources that do not come from human rights organizations and knee-jerk press in an attempt to balance it out.Cptnono (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So, you don't actually disagree with me, but you just wanted to get in some shots at those post-Zionist rapscallions like Amos Harel (who's served in the Hebron garrison, used to present on Israel Army Radio, but forget about that, he reported something you don't like, so he's clearly an anti-Israel demagogue.) Maybe find a better use for your time. <eleland/talkedits> 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the subject matter but I completely disagree with the tone you initially used with the other editor. Sorry if it hurt your feelings.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

→With all due respect, Eleland, the JPost source we're currently using is coherent with the numbers released by IDF. The Haaretz figures, that were published a day before IDF released its numbers, are not. If you would be able to tell from where did they get those figures (I tried but failed), I would agree. BTW, in one of the previous discussions I managed to prove that one of the most respectable mass-media sources (was it BBC?) cited HRW in an erroneous way (Cryptonio agreed with me and that means something), so please don't confuse mass-media and verifiability. Another BTW - who told you Haaretz is the most respectable newspaper? Maybe it is perceived as such abroad, for its biased criticism towards Israel, but inside Israel it is not. And the fact that Amos Harel exposed the 'wanton killing' affair and then ridiculed the very idea that 'testimony' was nothing but a hearsay says something about their inclination. Not to mention Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. But that was off-topic. Generally, I don't have a problem with Haaretz, they are respectable newspaper and RS, no problem. However, for this discussion, their publication is irrelevant. It contradicts the numbers by the IDF. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic, setting aside the specifics of this particular case, I assume that you are willing to accept that reliable secondary sources including those in the mass media trump the IDF as a source everytime according to WP core policies regarding sources ? eleland's comment that the 'position that the IDF Spokesman's Office gets to write our articles for us is completely untenable' is a very serious point. I assume you would agree that from the WP:V and common sense perspective, the IDF as a information source for what took place in Gaza is as "genuine" and reliable as the People's Liberation Army is for what took place in Tiananmen Square ? The view that reliable secondary sources in the media (which includes Haaretz) are "partisan and unverifiable" whereas IDF sources are "genuine" seems contrary to core WP policies to me and a little bit alarming. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

'Sceptic, setting aside the specifics of this particular case' - man, we are discussing this particular case! We are discussing what are the Palestinian fatalities according to IDF and some of the editors try to convince to cite numbers that contradict IDF itself. "partisan and unverifiable" was a description of this specific matter, and I emphasized later that usually I don't have any objections to Haaretz, or BBC, or Ma'an, or you name it. And if it wasn't clear that I don't necessarily see IDF as the only reliable source to what happened in Gaza - then yes I agree with you, Sean. But please, when citing IDF side of a story - let's be coherent with IDF and not with info that I couldn't verify in IDF or MFA, etc. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. I think we're getting confused. These are both government figures; Haaretz just passed them on. One is from the Israeli Defence Forces and one is from the Israeli Defence Ministry. From Haaretz: "It should be noted that the IDF's figures are also different from those given on Wednesday by the Defense Ministry, which said that more than 1,370 Palestinians, including at least 309 non-combatants, were killed during Operation Cast Lead."[5] --JGGardiner (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant by 'They say those numbers were published by Foreign Affairs' - but apparently it was my mistake and the source was Defense Ministry. Now, I think we all agree that according to IDF, '1,166 Palestinians were killed in the operation. It found that 709 were Hamas militants, while 295 were civilians, including 89 minors and 49 women.' This figures present on sites of both IDF spokesperson and MFA site. As for the Defense Ministry, if indeed they told Haaretz a day before the publication wrong numbers - then my apologies to Haaretz. The problem is that, apart from Haaretz, no other Israeli newspaper reported it. It couldn't be found on Defense Ministry site (no surprise, their site is poorly done and not updated). Finally, IDF are subjected to Defense Ministry, so it is inconceivable the Ministry says one thing and the Army - another.

What can I say? This is pretty embarrassing. However, since Defense Ministry delivered the numbers on 25th and IDF on 26th of March, and all the other Israeli sources including IDF site and MFA site are coherent with the latter, I would still be holding to the latter. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On disputed figures.

The main problem for me is, not that these two 'think tank' are reliable or not, although if there is a challenge to their information, it would be on grounds of verifiability. They bring up 'evidence' within their reliable 'reporting' and such, but there are questions about what they think constitute 'evidence'. Perhaps others, on firm grounds, would simply dismiss these two 'think tanks', I was mainly discussing the information they have provided. Sean just brought up this point as well. Again, the problem is not that they bring up evidence and the like, the problem is the actual information that they used to prove their point, I don't think that is information that should be presented as facts. Now, I think that Nableezy may not have necessary shares this concern, but I'm pretty sure he is acceptor of these sources, when it comes to this point, on grounds that he realizes or perhaps know that indeed Hamas fighters are also policemen. But I don't know that, and I don't feel like assuming that either. These Israelis 'think tanks' have to be addressed, because I don't see other articles providing this kind of weight to other think tanks etc. These evidences presented by these think tanks are not smoking guns or anything like that. They are presenting information in order to prove their points. And proving points is not the object of wiki. If the evidence then, does not present itself as facts, and relieve the doubts of the reader, then a simple objection(observation) by Israel that they assume Gaza police are also Hamas fighters would do, enough to convene the thought to the reader that this in fact may be the case. I will challenge this further in time. Or maybe not.

In a nutshell, I don't think that these think tanks can be used 'alas' UN or any other organization that is used to provide independent verifiability(which is the way that their are being used on this subject). Even if other thinks that the UN and the other organizations are bias to one group, the point has not been proven that indeed we have to treat them as being biased. With these Israeli think tanks, there is not even the question whether they are not biased, the questions with them is, can they be used as an 'independent verifiability' source.

If Israel(itself) says that Policemen were Hamas fighters, than that is more than enough to present Israel's POV, nothing else is needed, and if wiki feels something else is needed, these Israeli think tanks cannot be the answer.

The sentence on ITCI's info-gathering should be able to cover both of the current paragraph. Too much weight given to these two 'think tanks' whose job is within this article is not necessarily clear. Will fix this again. Cryptonio (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

1. 'If Israel(itself) says that Policemen were Hamas fighters, than that is more than enough to present Israel's POV' - Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a database of Israel says this and Palestinians say that. These reports provide evidence that back-ups Israel's (or IDF's) view. If there were similar reports from non-Israeli sources, I would be supporting to include them regardless of their findings. (Off-topic, here goes an example. Let's say there is a huge edit warring between Cryptonio and Sceptic. Cryptonio calls Sceptic pro-Israeli biased propagandist, while Sceptic calls Cryptonio an ignorant vandal. Someone else writes an encyclopedic article about the issue. Would this sayings from both sides be enough? I think no. Pro-Cryptonio editors are entitled to present Sceptic's edits as evidence for his propaganda; pro-Sceptic editors are entitled to present Cryptonio's deletions as evidence for vandalism (and a request from 4 editors apart from Sceptic to stop this). There could be a discussion to what extent are Sceptic's edits amount to propaganda and to what extent are Cryptonio's edits amount to vandalism, but I wouldn't object presenting the evidence.)
2. 'think tanks' whose job is within this article is not necessarily clear' - they provide encyclopedic info. Much in the similar way that PCHR provides encyclopedic and valuable independant info. The fact that I regard them as biased and propagandist doesn't mean I object their input as such. BTW, PCHR are given a lot of weight in Casualties section - so would you delete them too?
3. 'UN or any other organization that is used to provide independent verifiability' - the UN definitely won't provide independant info - remember that UN runs UNRWA whose 99% of employees are Palestinians.
4. 'I don't think that is information that should be presented as facts' - their findings are not presented as facts. The sentences in the article are well attributed to 'Israeli think-tank says/claims that...'
5. These two reports address very different issues:

• ITIC report presents evidencies that during Gaza war many policeman were indeed Hamas fighters and that police as a whole was instructed to fight IDF. The report provides a-posteriori justification to IDF attacks on police.
• ITC report present analyses of PCHR fatalities data. They claim that many casualties, who were categorised by PCHR as civilians, turn out to be Hamas fighters. Most important, 'Examining age distribution of the casualties [published by PCHR], ICT estimated that 63% to 75% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza War appear to have been specifically-targeted, combat-aged males, and based on this finding conclude that PCHR’s own data refutes claim that Israel’s attacks were indiscriminate.'

To sum it up, I'm ready to discuss everything with anyone, but I won't let Cryptonio delete highly valuable verifiable encyclopedic information (especially pro-Israeli but not necessarily) and I hope other editors will support this. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't get involved too much here since I am not well-informed but the UNRWA isn't simply run by Palestinians as you say. The organization does not perform background checks on employees and is indifferent towards applicants who are loyal to Hamas or even members. This is all according to the former chief counsel and legal mediator. It would also be impossible for the UNRWA to continue their mission in Gaza without allowing Hamas-supporters to manage the camps and facilities because the vast majority of civilians voted for the party. Which begs the question; does this bring credibility to the accusations that Hamas has used/uses UNRWA-facilities to launch attacks again enemies? It would seem logical to assume if militants work inside. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say btw that UNRWA is run by Palestinians. It is run by the UN and its representatives, but they employ local population, so that 99% of the employees are Palestinians. This is btw in contrast to the general UN policies on similar matters elsewhere in the world. So even if Gunness and his closest subordinates are independent, some clash of interests seems conceivable. Anyway, Wikifan, we won't deal with speculations (even though I agree with the validity of your assumption); however, when somebody says something like 'UN/Human Rights Council can provide independant, balanced and objective insight' - it is at least controversial and (excuse my arrogance) said by someone who very little knowledge in the subject. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your words, not mine: "remember that UN runs UNRWA whose 99% of employees are Palestinians." That's exactly what I said. My point is the UN has as much control over the UNRWA as America's "sanctions" against hostile countries. UN "representatives" are held hostage by the host government and are forced to comply or face expulsion, like every other journalist and organizations that doesn't appease the party. America pumps 100-200mill annually and lets the UNRWA blow it all away to promote the Palestinian agenda opposed to the original charter of humanitarian aid. This is a documented fact and can be observed simply by how little progress has been made over the last 40 years. I am well-schooled in the art of the United Nations, but this casualty debate confuses me both on a moral and ethical level. Quite frankly, I find it rather disgusting. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On a personal level, I agree with everything you said (except for 2 last sentences). Unfortunately, this off-topic won't help much in my 'edit warring' with Cryptonio, right? Your last 2 sentences puzzled me: 'casualty debate confuses me both on a moral and ethical level. Quite frankly, I find it rather disgusting' - what do you mean? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's simply my humanity but I feel arguing over kills and casualties is morally apprehensible. Who's worth more, a Palestinian or a Jew? It's like the douchebags who try to de-legitimize the holocaust by saying "oh, lots of other people died too." To sit and watch "humanitarian" organizations mathematically defend dead terrorists and include them with true non-combatants is beyond me. I am morally flexible to a realistic degree but I cannot understand why this continues to be tolerated by the mainstream. It's certainly not a one-way-street but much of the logic behind the Palestinian cause is dependent on these rather inaccurate numbers that continue to illustrate a lack of respect for life. I don't know...just SOAPING here but you asked. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

yall want to keep talking about this do it on your talk pages. i for one can not stand to read this stuff so i respectfully ask you carry on elsewhere. Nableezy (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have a problem with Crypt's ranting. At least be consistent. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second, Wikifan, this is not what Nableezy said. I don't know what he thinks about the Cryptonio's post, but as far as I can judge he is not the greatest fan of Cryptonio. Now Nableezy, instead of reprimanding, why wouldn't you tell something constructive about the Cryptonio's post? If you already read this stuff, you might have read initial post and my response. And? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not judging, and wikifan and I have a history of acrimony that tends to cause a gag reflex upon reading most of his words, I just dont want to get into these discussions and would honestly rather not see them. When he says "Who's worth more, a Palestinian or a Jew?" all he is doing is trolling. It is a line of discussion that will only serve to inflame emotions and halt any productive cooperation that could help the article. As far as what Cryptonio said above, this is my view on how these things should be presented. What Israel said (meaning statements from the government or army), what the Palestinians said (statements from official ministries or Hamas spokesmen), what the UN and human rights groups say, and then if really necessary what other commentators say. I dont put think tanks in the same class as human rights groups, I put them with 'other commentators'. Everything else he wrote was about the real world issues and not about the sources and how they figure into the article so I would rather not pay attention. But my point above was that if you guys want to carry that specific line of discussion feel free, just not on this page. Go ahead and discuss the finer points of moral equivalence to your hearts content, but please keep it on your talk pages. Nableezy (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of these specific reports I think they can be used. Most of it is just attempting to rebut the statements of HRW and AI and if thats the best you got doing that then fine. You havent seen me remove those from the article. So long as they are properly attributed they are fine, but we do need to beware of giving undue weight to those reports. Nableezy (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am less emotional and more pragmatical (and sceptical? i think yes) man, so mass-media headlines and human-rights NGOs don't impress me much. I prefer think-tanks + self checking. As for these reports, '...but we do need to beware of giving undue weight to those reports' - so far, recalling that you didn't remove those, they were not given undue weight, were they? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not the headlines that catch me, but the fact that AI and institutions such as that are widely regarded as fair and impartial, and yes I am aware that in Israel and among its supporters that is not true, while these think tanks are wholly partisan, in fact self-declared to be so, and in my view generally are paid to obfuscate the truth. That opinion doesnt mean much as far as the article, but I do think the IICT is given too much weight in that section. Nableezy (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for AI, the section below addresses (for the second time, the first was 'occupation') their bias, and maybe, just maybe, it will sow a seed of scepticism towards their neutrality and objectivity in you or the others who read this . As for your view towards think tanks (Israeli I guess), that's a horrible speculation. If you have any bases to this, you should immediately bring it in (maybe it will change my attitude?); if not, then why not open and read ITIC report for example and make an established judgement by yourself? As for ITC report, below is a slightly abridged and edited version of the paragraph. If you still think it is given undue weight - make your suggestion. Keep in mind, that this paragraph is a counterweight to the PCHR, anti-Israeli Palestinian NGO, whose numbers were widely accepted all over the world.

→ The Israeli International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), has compiled a report following their research of the casualties, based on the list of fatalities published by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, supplemented by Hamas and Fatah websites and official Palestinian government online sources. The ICT states that many of those listed by PCHR as civilians, including civil policemen, were in fact hailed as militant martyrs by Hamas. The ICT asserts that some of the civilians were Fatah members killed by Hamas and claims that among the youngsters counted as children by PCHR, it identified 18 combatants. Examining age distribution of the casualties reported by PCHR, ICT estimated that 63% to 75% of the Palestinians killed in Gaza War appear to have been specifically-targeted, combat-aged males, and based on this finding conclude that PCHR’s own data refutes claim that Israel’s attacks were indiscriminate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is fine, but I would suggest finding other sources as well so that the whole paragraph does not rely on one report. Nableezy (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I could have addressed you to the Elder... he does tremendous job :) If his findings would ever be picked up by RS, I would definitely bring them in. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with Cpt on getting rid of unnecessary text in the article, but this is a perfectly valid and important paragraph in my opinion. ICT is separate from the government. Sure, it tows government line in Israel, but the Brookings Institution and the editorial managers of both Time Magazine and Newsweek are house organs of the U.S. government as well, they are still cited anyway as RS.

I support leaving Sceptic's text in the article. The Squicks (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"The sentences in the article are well attributed to 'Israeli think-tank says/claims that...'". They will be in a minute. Cryptonio (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

International law Hamas subsection layout

The same as above could be applied to Hamas. Right now, allegations are mess. ITIC report sorts them out, see See 5 – Legal Appendix. Here is a copy-pasted unedited first part:

• (A) Attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects.
  • (1) Contravention of the principle of distinction.

The act of directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects contravenes the Principle of Distinction; according to this principle, parties must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Moreover, under this rule, it is strictly prohibited to direct attacks at civilian objects or civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities. The principle is encapsulated by Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (1977), stating that: "In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives." The violation of this basic prohibition also amounts to a war crime. See for example, Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), which includes within its list of acts constituting war crimes, the following: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities".' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Breaking a stereotype: never thought B'Tselem would publish anything apart from criticizing Israel. Apparently I was wrong. This is what they write about Rocket and mortar fire into Israel: 'Palestinian organizations that fire rockets and mortar shells into Israel openly declare that they intend to strike Israeli civilians, among other targets. Aiming attacks at civilians is both immoral and illegal, and the intentional killing of civilians is defined a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime that cannot be justified, under any circumstance. Furthermore, the rockets and mortar shells are illegal weapons, even when aimed at military objects, as they are greatly imprecise and endanger civilians present both in the area from which they are fired and where they land, thus violating two fundamental principles of the laws of war: distinction and proportionality. In a significant number of cases, Palestinians have fired the rockets and mortar shells from civilian residential areas. International humanitarian law (IHL) prohibits attacks from inside or near the homes of civilians, and using civilians as human shields. Palestinian organizations that choose to carry out attacks against communities in Israel from within or near populated areas breach this rule, and in doing so, demonstrate not only their intention to harm Israeli civilians, but also indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an attempt to introduce the edited first part:

1. Attacks directed against civilians and civilian objects (1) Contravention of the principle of distinction

As stated by various sources, including the UN official and Human Rights Watch report, deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians and civilian objects in southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups' rocket attacks violates International Humanitarian Law. Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) note that such attacks contravene the Principle of Distinction, as encapsulated by Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949: "it is strictly prohibited to direct attacks at civilian objects or civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities". Furthermore, former Canadian justice minister and McGill University law professor, Irwin Cotler, and ITIC point out that violation of this prohibition also amounts to a war crime as defined in the Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

HRW and B'Tselem reports notice that even if the above attacks were directed at a specific military objective, they would still be unlawful, due to the fact that the types of rockets used by Palestinian armed groups are imprecise and cannot be directed in a way that discriminates between military targets and civilians.

In 2007, exiled Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal called recent rockets attacks on Israel "self-defense". Hamas leaders "argue that rocket attacks on Israel are the only way to counter Israel's policies and operations, including artillery strikes". Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch has said that such justifications do not overcome the illegality of the attacks under laws governing reprisals, which prohibit direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(2) Contravention of the prohibition of committing acts intended to spread terror among the civilian population

HRW points out that primary purpose of the rocket attacks seems to be at least to spread terror among the Israeli civilian population. HRW adds that the rockets have created a pervasive climate of fear among people in the areas where they can reach. During the fighting, the psychological effect of the rocket attacks paralyzed life across Israel's south.. HRW official stated that "firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza". ITIC asserted that the attacks aimed at sowing terror among Israel's civilian population are prohibited under International Humanitarian Law and violate Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions: "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(B) Unlawful Methods of War employed by Hamas (1) Human shielding

The BBC reported on January 5 that "Witnesses and analysts confirm that Hamas fires rockets from within populated civilian areas. Amnesty International assessed that Hamas fighters put civilians in danger by firing from homes. United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes accused Hamas "reckless and cynical" use of civilian facilities during the hostilities in the Gaza Strip, and told that the above, as well as indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations, are clear violations of International Humanitarian Law. In the course of the fighting, evidencies for Hamas uses of civilian infrastructure were recorded in ITIC reports. Irwin Cotler said that attacks from within civilian areas and civilian structures in order to be immune from a response, e.g. apartment building, a mosque or a hospital, are unlawful; he explained that in these cases Hamas bears legal responsibility for the harm to civilians, as enshrined in general principles of International Humanitarian Law. ITIC accused Hamas of making systematic use of protected civilian areas (including homes and mosques) for the hiding and storage of rockets, explosives and ammunition; using of civilian facilities (such as universities) for weapons development; calling on Palestinians to flock to targets which are expected to be attacked in order to form "human shields". Such conduct contravenes the Laws of Armed Conflict and some of the practices above, e.g. Art. 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the International Criminal Court, amounts to a war crime.

(2) Making improper use of the flag and insignia of the UN, as well as the distinctive emblem of the Geneva Convention.

The Israeli security services chief Yuval Diskin suggested at the start of the offensive that Hamas militants were hiding at Gaza hospitals, some disguised as doctors and nurses. IDF probe, issued in April 2009, asserted that Hamas seniors, including Ismail Haniyeh, were taking over a ward of the Shifa Hospital, the Gaza Strip's largest, and set up a command center for the duration of the campaign. The IDF also noted that senior Hamas commanders set up a command center in a Red Crescent Society clinic in Khan Yunis and used it as a detention center. The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center stated that alleged evidences of improper use of protective emblems of the Geneva Conventions, as well as hiding in hospitals, constitute acts prohibited under the Laws of Armed Conflict, e.g. Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention. Irwin Cotler told The Jerusalem Post that misuse of humanitarian symbols, like using an ambulance to transport fighters or weapons or disguising oneself as a doctor in a hospital, amounts to war crimes. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(3) Violation of perfidy principle

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs note that International Humanitarian Law forbids to feign civilian status while actually being a combatant, and militants dressed as civilians make it highly likely that many innocent Palestinian civilians will be accidentally killed.

(4) Violation of laws regarding prisoners of war

Palestinian groups have held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit incommunicado and out of reach of the International Committee of the Red Cross since 2006. JCPA points out that this is a violation of international law concerning prisoners of war. Israeli NGO Monitor claims that Shalit's abductors breach several provisions of the Third Geneva Convention, e.g. the right to humane treatment (Art. 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (Art. 23); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (Art. 126).

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is ready. Unfortunately, I don't have any direct evidence children below 15 took part in the fighting - if anyone will provide the evidence, additional subsection will be constructed. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

During last 2.5 weeks I recieved no objections and reservations. Hope it will be accepted and that we can move forward to the Israeli subsection. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Gilad Shalit part is an issue, the sources dont tie those vios with this conflict. He has been brought up in the ceasefire negotiations so he should (and I think is) mentioned there, but in this section the relation is lacking. Nableezy (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also /Archive 39#Israel ties ceasefire to Shalit Nableezy (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else except you dropped - congrats on the achievement. On the one hand, you are right (and frankly I had similar deliberations prior deciding to do insert the subsection) - it is tied with the background and not with the fighting directly. On the other hand, he is held in the same terms before, throughout and after the war. You are probably not aware, but there was great pressure to include his reliese in the aims of the operation, and there was huge disappointment in Israel when it ended without. Moreover, the same argument could be applied to other issues mentioned in the IntLaw section - i.e. rocket attacks and the blockade of Gaza. Nevertheless, they are covered both in the background and mentioned in the IntLaw section and I think it is appropriate. Next, don't forget that 'Both Israel and Hamas have been accused of violating international law during and prior to this conflict' and that Golstone came to investigate violations during and prior to the war. The source I used, JCPA, presents all the issues in one complex and I think it is justified. Finally, the issue is indeed mentioned in the background, but it doesn't emphasize that terms of his captivity violate several int-laws. So, do we keep collective punishment and Shalit, or we drop both? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

the source I use

I think the two issues (collective punishment and Shalit) are separate and should be treated as such. The collective punishment is cited by Hamas as a cause for launching rockets, as well as multiple organizations calling the attacks themselves collective punishment. I dont think that can be disputed as to its relevance. Shalit on the other hand was not brought up by the Israeli government until the ceasefire negotiations. If they had raised that as an issue then I think it should be in the section, but as far as I know they had not (if I am mistaken and there was a government official who did raise the issue as either a cause for the attacks or as an aim of them then please inform me as that would change my mind on this). Nableezy (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First, to avoid any misunderstanding, I fully agree that the two issues are separate and should be treated as such, and that 'collective punishment' issue is totally relevant. But I wanted to emphasize that the logic to include both issues is similar. Second, please read the following article. Pay special attention to the following points: '“The [Israel Defense Forces] are in the Gaza Strip, and I sincerely hope that the Strip will not be evacuated without returning Gilad Shalit,” Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann said at the January 18 Cabinet meeting... Shas leader Eli Yishai, minister of Trade and Labor, agreed. “As long as Shalit isn’t home, we must not stop the IDF strikes,” he said.'; 'During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas departed from the sense it usually gives off that Shalit is a carefully guarded bargaining chip — with a price tag of around 1,400 Palestinian prisoners, according to recent demands. “Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been,” senior Hamas official Musa Abu Marzuk reportedly told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat on January 11. “The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard, since he is as good as a cat, or less.”' - so during the war itself Hamas deliberately issued statements regarding their misconduct of the issue. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, I think it can go in, but I do think the whole section, not just the Shalit piece, needs to be compacted. Nableezy (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey should have a green colour at this map . Because PM Erdogan says: "They [Hamas] have made mistakes."[6] Of course was his reaction to Israel bigger, but that is because Israeli troops killed more people in a shorter period than Hamas. -Randam (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that whole list is indefensible. It is, and can only be, a complete pile of OR. Some editor read a line in an article where a Latvian foreign ministry spokesman said something, so the editor just inserts the claim that Latvian policy is that, to the exclusion of all other things. An editor can't know that. A source can't really know that either but at least we can point to who said it in a Rankean way. So I think the whole list should be removed unless someone can explain to me how it can be done without OR. Lists like that are even worse than infoboxes. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty Report on who broke the ceasefire

This may already be in the article. But I will post this here anyway, for discussion.

This article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast references a new Amnesty report 'confirming' that it was Israel who broke the ceasefire, in November. It goes on to say that Hamas rockets caused no fatalities until the Israeli bombardment started. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable enough source.

As well, its- obviously- factually in dispute as to who bore the most responsibility for going against the ceasefire. Hamas did not end the barrage upon Israel at any point and neither did it take respon; Israel did not stop its military incursions into Gaza at any point. It's hard to 'break' something that never was upheld by either side. Whichever side was more in the wrong is a matter of opinion. The Squicks (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up last week in the New Amnesty Report section above. It links the two relevant articles if you want to read them directly. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? I read that and found two links, neither of which was to AI. The Squicks (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While Abunimah's posting in Comment is Free is a reliable source for opinion and commentary, with the proviso that it should be used sparingly and only in contexts where partisan opinions are genuinely useful, it is not a reliable source for the contents of the AI report. However, AI itself is a highly significant resource, in the top tier of reliable sources, and the attacks made by some editors here on AI's credibility (often nothing more than rote repetitions of claims by irrelevant and obscure Israeli groups like NGO Monitor) are appalling. It's dismaying that the same completely worthless arguments (AI reached a conclusion that is damning of Israeli actions, therefore AI is biased against Israel, therefore AI's conclusions are to be rejected - you can substitute "AI" with any source you like, even Israeli journalists) are recycled endlessly here despite their utter lack of foundation in Wikipedia policy or even common sense. <eleland/talkedits> 03:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

AI is not in the top tier of reliable sources, especially in these sorts of articles. Your assessment of NGO Monitor is absurd and so is your rant on the glory of AIs "proven" credibility inside Israel. AI always reaches conclusion that are damning against Israel, shocker there. Guess that's it then, AI is the truth-bearer and everything else is nothing less than a Jew Israeli fascist propaganda. Of course, Israel, being one of the most transparent countries in the Middle East (not much of an accomplishment when your competition is mixture of theocracies and dictatorships), has continually offered thorough rebuttals that have gone largely ignored. AI has a fetal obsession with Israel and promoting their "reports" as "highly" significant in terms of reliability is disturbing. Yes, we are obligated to use their info because they are inherently significant by virtue of being one of the most cited advocacy organizations in the world. I am just beefed with your false representation and POV that has little to do what constitutes reliable sources. Next. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are the best sources there are for information on human rights violations. They are widely regarded as the best sources. Your oh-so-witty remark about how I hate "Jew Israeli fascists" is a grave personal attack and you should erase it. Most of your post is irrelevant and unintelligible, to the point where you're responding to quotes that don't even appear in the previous post ("proven?" what?) <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

→This is what AI writes: A ceasefire agreed in June between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza held for four and a half months, but broke down after Israeli forces killed six Palestinian militants in air strikes and other attacks on 4 November. Of course, we can say that AI accused Israel of breaking down the ceasefire. The question is was it really so? As The Squicks pointed out correclty, neither side hold to ceasefire - Hamas did not end the barrage upon Israel and besides didn't stop smuggling, while Israel eased the blockade only slightly and did not stop its military incursions into Gaza. All the above the AI ignores, and what is more - they disregard that according to IDF, the attack on Nov. 4 was against a Hamas-dug tunnel from Gaza to Israel that could have presumably served to attack and even kidnap more Israeli soldiers. And you would argue, Eleland, that AI are not biased against Israel? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Go on with the AI report to 'Military justice system' section, 'Prisoner releases' subsection. 'In July, the Israeli authorities released five Lebanese prisoners, one of them held since 1979 and four captured during the 2006 war.' Do you realize, Eleland, that the one held since 1979 is Samir Kuntar? Do you know what he did to that 4-year-old girl he held as a hostage? Now that is something truly appalling. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is dubious to say a ceasefire was agreed upon because both parties had their own specific conditions, many of which were not mutual. In regards to Sceptic's stat on prison release, Israel has traded over 7,000 prisoners for ~20 Israeli's and a pair of dead bodies. Funny, Israel is the only country on Earth that officially negotiates and completes transactions with recognized terrorist movements. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's move further, to Palestinian Authority complemenary report: Background - 'The Israeli government maintained a tight blockade of the Gaza Strip, a form of collective punishment of its 1.5 million population, for the continuing detention there of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.' - oh really? Not only do they misquote the definition of collective punishment, they again 'forget' to mention here hundreds of rockets. Well, they do mention them in a distant 'Abuses by armed groups' section: 'Palestinian armed groups in Gaza frequently launched indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian areas in southern Israel. From the beginning of the year until the ceasefire in June, Palestinian armed groups in Gaza, including groups affiliated to Hamas and Fatah, fired more than 2,000 rockets and mortars against nearby Israeli towns and villages.' and then 'After the breakdown of the ceasefire in November, rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups in Gaza against Israel resumed but did not result in further deaths of Israeli civilians until after the onset of the 27 December offensive by Israeli forces' - does it mean Israel had to wait until someone got killed? There were more than enough who suffered from shock. Interestingly, on Dec.26 one rocket killed 'accidently' two girls in Gaza itself. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone but Eleland is disputing AI's habitual use of inaccurate and at times libelous sources to support analysis. But, the question is notability. How much weight should we give the AI report? It is a certified-RS and is widely used by media, most notably BBC. Whatever dirt we dig up as users is irrelevant and could constitute OR if it were crafted into the article. If we can find a 3rd party source or simply rely on IDF briefings, tackling the "facts" problem shouldn't be much of an issue. Though there must be 3rd party reliable sources that explicitly corroborate intellectual negligence on a part of AI's "investigations." Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's always NGO Monitor, that Eleland so despises. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally have no issue with NGO Monitor and don't see anything particularly wrong in their assessments. It doesn't hide behind a facade of neutrality and moral outrage as the monitor is loaded with former IDF commandos and isn't really ashamed of it.:D If NGO monitor were to explicitly challenge AI, or offer a differing POV, we could include it..though that would be debated for sure. I honestly haven't read the full article in about a week so NGO might actually already be here. Here is Israel disputing, AP. That is basically a copy and paste of Harretz. Not sure are far this will go but it could be used to substantiate Israeli claims: Hamas did blah blah blah. NYT is a certified RS for those who are unaware. As far as I'm concerned it's a sick fight but obviously there is far more information from RS that illustrate a strongly critical portrait of Israeli actions and if so facto Israeli math no matter how logical it might seem. For now screening out blatant libel and preventing criticism forks should be a goal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Monitor do explicitely challenge AI, at least their annual report. The info you bring here is already in the article, scattered where due. What is more, I find it extremely important to keep the reports of the think-tanks - they provide valuable encyclopedic information.

→Back to the start. Of course, in accordance with Wiki policies, we can say that AI accused Israel of breaking the cease-fire on Nov. 4. The question is high will it improve the article from encyclopedical POV? We've established that neither side exactly obeyed the terms of the lull (and that is covered well in the article and subarticle); moreover, Israel (at least according to IDF) had a very good reason to launch an attack on Nov. 4. So, I am asking again - is there any encyclopedical reason to include the accusation, apart from singling out Israel and veil the Hamas' responsibility? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Outside of typical Arab media, AI is the sole crusader and I can't see why it deserves a unique voice beyond general concerns. The IDF has basically provided a tit-for-tat analysis in response to most, if not all AI accusations. We would legally have to include the evidence IDF presents because leaving AI's accusation unanswered gives a false sense of ambiguity that could be translated into reality. The issue is so contested and disputed that it might make sense to simply cut the issue right down the middle. The consensus isn't Israel violated the cease-fire but neither is it Hamas baited Israel into a war. So perhaps we should deal an equal voice to all sides, or fall on policy and only provide accusations per due weight. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying. CNN,[7] (also quoting US News and World Report) The Manchester Guardian,[8] the Irish Times,[9] and yes even Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz[10] are not "typical Arab media." I'd also like to know your reaction if somebody here started talking about "typical Jewish media." <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As a more general response to the above back-slapping session from WikiFan and Skeptic, you two have reached the point where you're using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your personal views about Amnesty and about the Middle East conflicts generally. This is just disruptive. I'm tempted to point out some of the howling factual inaccuracies in your little gab-fest ("Israel is the only country on Earth that officially negotiates and completes transactions with recognized terrorist movements" is a favorite of mine, lolololol) but honestly, just quiet down. People are trying to edit Wikipedia in accordance with policy and can do without this kind of disruption. <eleland/talkedits> 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very confused. This has little to do with what you said previously. As far as I know Israel is the only country in the ME with several native RS-certified (wikipedia) media organizations, with the exception of AJ though I do not know why that is considered reliable. While clearly off topic and I apologize if this hijacking, but those agreements/parties/movements you linked are hardly comparable to Israeli policy. The ANC was more militant than terrorist, and the rest excluding Ireland aren't a fair mention either. Let me rephrase: Israel consistently negotiates with terrorist, more so than any other country in the Middle East and pound for pound more so than every country on Earth. This is what Syria does when its faced with a militant movement and what they perceive as a terrorist-threat: Hama massacre and Tel al-Zaatar massacre. Anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Go reread, Eleland, your initial post on this thread and try to realize how aggressive, disruptive and biased it is.

I wonder whether you read this Guardian article beyond the headline. At least according to IDF, there was a good reason for the raid. AI doesn't mention it. There were rockets and mortars during the lull well before Nov. 4. Nobody mentions it. Nevermind. All the details are already in the article. I ask you again - is there any encyclopedical value to add AI accusation, apart from singling out Israel and veil the Hamas' responsibility? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, you claimed that no country except Israel had ever signed treaties with designated terrorist organizations; I showed this to be false, and now you come back saying well, maybe other countries have entreated with designated terrorist groups, but those groups aren't comparable with the groups Israel negotiates with (for unspecified reasons,) and anyway the point is Israel negotiates more with them, "pound for pound," (but you provide no evidence whatsoever for this, nor do you specify what "pound for pound" even means,) and oh boy those Syrians over yonder are a nasty bunch aren't they!

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously? You make confident declamations on matters you clearly know absolutely nothing about and when you're proven wrong you just make other confident declamations.

Sceptic, Wikifan claimed that only AI and those nasty A-rabs claimed that Israel broke the ceasefire, I show this to be false, and you come back saying maybe Israel broke the ceasefire but they were justified in doing so. Again, we can argue about that if you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Wikifan has made anther false statement. If you want me to stop being "aggressive," get him to stop making things up. Until then I'm going to "aggressively" point out that he's talking smack. <eleland/talkedits> 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. I said beyond AI and state-owned Arab media (which you racistly refer to "nasty a-rabs," though perhaps that is in jest), no media endorses their version. BBC linked AI's report, as did several other news organizations. You've been making false assumptions and damn near libelous propositions that have fortunately not been edited into the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I made any claims about peace treaty signings. Find me a diff where I mention anything of the sort, please. Go ahead. I don't really expect anything. You equalized British/SA "treaties" as a competing example towards Israel's policy. Do you think the British army will ever trade 150 captured Iraqi insurgents for a dead british soldier? Have they ever done so? No, they haven't. To simply dismiss Syrian actions where their military killed more people in a single day than all Palestinians killed directly by Israeli fire over the last 40 years (when Egypt and Jordan no longer occupied the territories) as "yonder are a nasty bunch aren't they" says a lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What I find shocking that is that many people- such as Andrew Sullivan are proud of the fact that they don't think for themselves and they trust what they read on Wikipedia about things like who broke the ceasefire. The Squicks (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

thumb|right|300px|What did I ever do to you people to deserve this?!

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/barack-obama-middleeast There isn't anyone here who would consider this a reliable source in this context is there?

Definitely not by this blog, worth reading: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/06/nyt-repeats-egyptian-journalists-lie.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• As of now, the section in this article on the cease-fire currently reads:

On November 4, 2008, Israeli forces raided a Hamas-dug tunnel near the Israel-Gaza border. The IDF claimed the tunnel was intended for the capture of Israeli soldiers while Hamas asserted that the tunnel served defensive purposes.[74] The raid and the associated air strike killed six Hamas fighters. Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel in what was described by a Hamas spokesman as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".[25][75] According to a November 17 article in The Daily Telegraph, "since violence flared on November 5, Israeli forces and militants, some of them from Hamas, have engaged in almost daily tit-for-tat exchanges."[76] Rocket attacks targeted at Israeli cities near Gaza sharply increased during November 2008, approaching pre-truce levels.[77]

I don't really see what the AI report would add to this paragraph. It already has all the information necessary. Prehaps something like Amnesty International later point to the raid as the effective end of the ceasefire. would be worth including in the 2008 Israel–Hamas ceasefire main page? I don't see any real reason to add it to this page (Although I'm not opposed to it to the extent that I would make a big deal out of it). The Squicks (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever prior feelings I had toward the Palestinians, the image that Sceptic linked to of a Palestinian man brutally mistreating a harmless pink fluffy bunny that only wanted to be his friend has torn it.

I bet they kick puppies in their spare time as well. / sarc The Squicks (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the man is considered a national hero among the Palestinians and much of the Arab world. Most militants/convicted murders/etc.. are glorified, shocker. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palis are more 'Duck' fans then they are 'Bunny' fans. I can somewhat sympathize. That fuzzy little bro probably crossdressed to entice and then confuse the man, honked him on the nose, stole his aid package, and then remarked "Ain't I a stinker?" The Squicks (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the language and the contents of the latest posts, maybe that's for good 'cause I don't think it's appropriate. If this is about Kuntar, than it should be noticed that he is Druze by nationality btw. All this is completely irrelevant - all nations has its heros and villains - but was to show the bias of AI, that are unable to call spade a spade. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN inquiry

I don't like the paragraph:

Ban Ki-Moon ordered a UN Headquarters Board of Inquiry led by Ian Martin to independently investigate the nine most serious attacks on UN personnel and property. Israel was faulted in seven of the nine cases including an attack on a UNRWA school in Jabalia that killed between 30 and 40 people. The report accused Israel of "gross negligence amounting recklessness" men and stated that allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises "were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted." Hamas was found guilty in one of the nine cases. Ban was to seek up to $11 million in damages from Israel. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, '...an attack on a UNRWA school ...' - even the source cited says that mortar shells landed near an UNRWA school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering. Seven people were wounded inside the school, but an estimated 30-40 people were killed nearby.

Second, '...allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises "were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted."... Well, at least in case of the UNRWA school, this is not exactly correct:

Witnesses, including Hanan Abu Khajib, 39, said that Hamas fired just outside the school compound, probably from the secluded courtyard of a house across the street, 25 yards from the school. Israeli return fire, some minutes later, also landed outside the school, along the southwest wall, killing two Hamas fighters. Nearly all the casualties were in the street outside the compound, with only three people wounded from shrapnel inside the walls.

I would have added another sentence, like: 'Israeli officials rejected the report as one-sided, saying it ignored the fact that Israel was fighting a war against a "terrorist" organization -- the militant group Hamas.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be also noted that 'During the probe, the army also looked into a complaint filed by the United Nations that the air force had bombed an UNRWA vehicle in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood in southern Gaza City. The probe revealed that the vehicle was bombed since it did not have markings and was driving at night in an area off limits to civilian vehicles' - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710759267&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

For those who want to read an IDF side of the story (if there are any) - here you are. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic the UN and media treats every Israeli report with extreme hostility and doubt - opposed to accepting everything from the Palestinian camp as unquestioned truth. The UN is above Israel in terms of "reliability" because it is considered a 3rd party and does not "take sides" (i.e, does not "officially" endorse Hamas or IDF). We should definitely beef up IDF dispute but I don't see how we can screen out not-so-nice UN rhetoric without compromising wiki policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ban Ki-Moon ordered a UN Headquarters Board of Inquiry led by Ian Martin to independently investigate the nine most serious attacks on UN personnel and property. Israel was faulted in seven of the nine cases, and Hamas was found guilty in one of the nine. One of those included an attack near a UNRWA school in Jabalia that the UN says killed between 30 and 40 people, while the IDF says 12- most of them militants- died. The report accused Israel of "gross negligence" and also stated that allegations that militants had fired from within U.N. premises "were untrue, continued to be made after it ought to have been known that they were untrue, and were not adequately withdrawn and publicly regretted." The report confirmed that Hamas militants fired from near the school and then ran beside it. Ban plans to seek up to $11 million in damages from Israel.

Is this better? The Squicks (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, the 2nd to last sentence obviously being the most crucial addition. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Much much better. 2 small reservations: I would use another word for attack near school - an incident for example (it wasn't something planned beforehand); and militants didn't just die, it should be rephrased somehow. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have added also that: The IDF conducted its own probe into claims regarding incidents where UN and international facilities were fired upon and damaged. The investigation concluded that in all the 13 cases investigated, there was no deliberate intention to hit a UN vehicle or facility; the findings published argue that in all cases except one, the damage resulted either from retaliatory fire or from misuse of the UN vehicles by Hamas militants. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have added yet another sentence, like: Israeli officials rejected the report as one-sided, saying it ignored the fact that Israel was fighting a war against a terrorist organization. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The preamble to IntLaw section

Long long time ago, before I even concieved the idea of joining the forum, there was this sentence and a half that opened the preamble:

'Under international law warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensure that attacks on legitimate military targets are proportional, and guarantee that the military advantage of such attacks outweigh the possible harm done to civilians. Violations of these laws are considered war crimes.[346]' - the source was this advisory service.

Interestingly enough, only the first part of it appear in the ICRC report. All the part about proportionality principle must have been taken from elsewhere. Anyway, I like the idea and I think this is a proper way to start the section. Here is a suggestion:

Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), contained in Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols of 1977, warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians and protect those who do not take part in the fighting (such as civilians and medical and religious military personnel) or those who have ceased to take part in the fighting (such as wounded).

It could also be noted (Cryptonio pay attentiont, but please don't make the whole thread out of it) that:

The law sets out a number of clearly recognizable symbols which can be used to identify protected people, places and objects, such as the red cross, the red crescent and the symbols identifying cultural property and civil defense facilities.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are such a kid. When you finish sucking on your thumb, why don't you also ask mommy to change your diaper? Cryptonio (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The preamble was out of place and not related to the prose. The information is still in but it was moved after plenty of discussion.Cptnono (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

recent additions

Does anybody have a problem with this revert? The "Backed by civilian human-shields, civilian buildings as covers." in the infobox for the Hamas strength has been going on with this user for some time, been reverted by multiple users and I dont really see the need to explain why it doesnt belong, but if somebody insists I will. The rest is all making the Israeli position appear to be undisputed fact and making Palestinian viewpoints seem to be complete bullshit. "Israel suspected" becomes "Israel confirmed", "Israel accused" becomes presented as absolute fact or even becomes "Israel verified". OR such as "But others have noted that Hamas deliberately kept non-combatants in dangerous areas, knowing that launching rockets would sooner or later draw Israeli fire. It has also been said that Hamas could have built shelters for the civilians in the areas they intended to make into "Hot Zones," as their prowess in building underground tunnels has been clearly demonstrated." is inserted, and other similar nonsense. Does anybody else see any merit at all to the material I reverted? Nableezy (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Doonizs is the user that vandalised my user page with 'NEUTRALITY? YOU TALK ABOUT NEUTRALITY? YOU ARE AN ANTISEMITE ISLAMIC FANATIC TERRORISTS SUPPORTER.' and regarded replacing the word 'British' with 'English' as being related to punctuality. So I would say that they probably need to stop editing this article and read the guidelines or else they will end up getting posted on the Administrators' noticeboard when one of us loses our patience. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, I agree with you entirely and would have done the same if I had spotted them before you. Those are unverifiable speculations, good for blogs rather than encyclopedia. However, if the guy appears on the talk page first, and presents the source to his speculations, I might help him to put them in the article.

I also agree with Sean - the guy got the warning. If those acts will continue - a noticeboard right away. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Miscomprehensions of AI report

1. 'AI stated that the destruction of hundreds of homes may be in violation of international human rights law, which applies in peacetime and times of war.' - I don't like this sentence. Too ambiguous and implies that apparently Israel violated IHL. You can say such a sentence about everything - for example, killing in war may be a breach of IHL. Let's see closer to the actual wording of the AI report: 'Israel is forbidden from destroying the property of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, unless it is militarily necessary to do so.' So, unless someone gives me a good reason to leave the sentence, I intend to delete it.
2. 'AI determined that Israel had violated human rights laws with regard to access to food, water, housing and education in the conflict.' - there is indeed sentence that 'Israel has not only failed to adequately supply the population of Gaza, it has deliberately blocked and otherwise impeded emergency relief and humanitarian assistance'. Well, I have some pieces of evidence that at least to some extent the contrary is true, so I would substitute the word 'determined'. Next, what about housing and education? The report says 'During the conflict in Gaza, the human rights obligations that have been breached include the obligations to respect, protect and promote: the right to life (ICCPR, Article 6)22; the right to adequate food and housing (ICESCR, Article 11); the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (ICESCR, Article 12), which also includes the right to water; and the right to education (ICESCR, Article 13).23' - it doesn't say breached by Israel. It is true the paragraph focuses on 'OPT under Israel control'. However, to determine that Israel (and not Hamas) breached them is to determine that all the houses/schools/etc. were not used for military purposes and were hit deliberately by IDF. This far even AI doesn't go. So, please, we should be very careful, should we not? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1: The whole quote from the AI report: As the occupying power, Israel is forbidden from destroying the property of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, unless it is militarily necessary to do so. Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that:
“Any destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or co-operative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”
Israel’s aerial bombardment, artillery shelling and ground assault have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. In some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed. It is too early to assess the full extent of the damage; but satellite images suggest that it is devastating – particularly in areas such as Rafah in the south, and parts of the north and east of the Gaza Strip that had already suffered from illegal house destruction by Israeli forces on a mass scale prior to the disengagement in 2005.
According to Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly” is a grave breach and hence a war crime.

I dont think you can remove it, but if you want to add "unless it is militarily necessary to do so" fine, but I would also add this (paraphrased) "Israel’s aerial bombardment, artillery shelling and ground assault have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. In some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed."

2:remove housing and education, doesnt fit with the rest. Nableezy (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, I'll rephrase later the statement about the destruction and you'll add the rest. In a meanwhile I'll seek something about the buildings that were deliberately destroyed. You'll see that eventually it will be transformed to the subsection on its own.
2. We'll leave the food and the medicine, but if you don't mind with the little contribution from the MFA: 'The World Food Programme has informed Israel (on Dec. 31) that they will not be resuming shipment of food commodities in to Gaza due to the fact that their warehouses are at full capacity and will last for approximately two weeks.'; 'Today (Wednesday, December 31 2008), 12 Palestinians entered Israel for medical treatment in Israeli hospitals...Ninety three trucks, with approximately 2500 tons of humanitarian aid, medical supplies and medication were conveyed through Kerem Shalom cargo terminal.' BTW, at one point Egypt blamed Hamas for preventing hundreds of wounded Palestinians from leaving for treatment in Egypt. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

GAZA HUMANITARIAN SITUATION REPORT 2 January 2009 as of 14:30; Food shortages in Gaza; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod (talk • contribs) 04:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, FYI, Israeli response to Amnesty International report. Do you remember, Nableezy, our disagreement over reports that Hamas intimidates Gaza civilians (not necessarily political rivals)? I couldn't find strong and appropriate words to convince most of you that it is important info and must be included. At least, it turns out I am backed by Israeli officials: 'The witnesses providing the descriptions appearing in the report are interested parties and under Hamas pressure, as has been documented by many independent investigations in the international media. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and employs terror against its own citizens, thus rendering their testimony unreliable.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Found a secondary source: 'Officials added that the UN's World Food Program contacted the IDF on Wednesday and said that it would not need to transfer more food into Gaza, since its stockpiles were full and would last for another two weeks.' However: 'UNRWA has no wheat grain for the 750,000 people who need it," he said. "The wheat grain warehouses are empty. We need to get that wheat grain in now. This is a must'. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As usual, JCPA makes most valuable observation: 'Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits states to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories such as Gaza. Article 23 only requires a party to permit passage of food, clothing and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. Moreover, under Article 23, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel would only be required not to interfere with consignments of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age fifteen, mothers of newborns and pregnant women. Finally, under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination. Israel has excellent grounds for fearing this result, especially after Hamas seized fourteen Red Crescent trucks carrying humanitarian aid on February 7, 2008, on the pretext that only Hamas may decide how to distribute aid in Gaza. Fuel and electricity are almost certainly not items that Israel or other warring parties are required to supply.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

→

1. Amnesty International points out that according to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of homes and property of Palestinians is forbidden, unless it is militarily necessary to do so; unjustified violation of the prohibition is, in accodance with Article 147, a grave breach of the IHL. AI further notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip.
2. AI accused Israel of failure to provide adequate supply to the population of Gaza and deliberate impediment of emergency relief and humanitarian assistance. JCPA asserted that according to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel is only required not to interfere with consignments of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age fifteen, mothers of newborns and pregnant women; under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination. Israeli MFA claimed that more than 37,000 tons of humanitarian aid were allowed to Gaza from Israel and that numerous efforts for providing medical help took place in the course of the fighting. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of homes and property

Deliberations by the IDF during the conflict resulted in a decision that striking homes that may be used to store weapons, when "sufficient warning" is given to the residents, falls within the boundaries of international law and is therefore legitimate, citing Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which defines a site being used for military activities as a legitimate target. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) asserts that the rule of distinction permits attacking legitimate targets, even if the attack is expected to cause collateral damage to civilians and even if, in retrospect, the attack was a mistake based on faulty intelligence; moreover, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes clear that the presence of civilians “may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations". Amnesty International points out that according to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, destruction of homes and property of Palestinians is forbidden, unless it is militarily necessary to do so; unjustified violation of the prohibition is, in accodance with Article 147, a grave breach of the IHL. AI further notes that in some cases, civilian buildings and homes were deliberately destroyed and that Israel's offensive have caused extensive destruction of civilian property in the Gaza Strip. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Food, medical supplies and relief

AI accused Israel of failure to provide adequate supply of food, essential supplies, medicine and medical care to the population of Gaza, as well as deliberate impediment of emergency relief and humanitarian assistance. JCPA asserted that according to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is under no obligation to provide anything itself; Israel is only required not to interfere with passage of food and so forth sent by others for the benefit of children under age fifteen, mothers of newborns and pregnant women; under Article 23, a party can block passage even of food, clothing and medicine even for these population groups if it has serious grounds for suspecting that the items will be intercepted before reaching their destination. Several instances of Hamas seizing convoys of humanitarian aid were reported before and in the course of the fighting. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed that more than 37,000 tons of humanitarian aid were allowed to Gaza from Israel and that numerous efforts for providing medical help took place in during the war. The emergency clinic, opened at the Erez crossing at the end of the fighting, was shut down shortly due to the low number of Palestinian patients, supposedly as a the result of a direct order by Hamas not to transfer the wounded to Israel.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Goldstone and Hamas

I'm not sure if this is in the article yet but according to the washington post Goldstone considers a possible war crimes trial for either combatants is "unlikely." More: "Israel has refused to cooperate, depriving his team access to military sources and victims of Hamas rockets. And Hamas security often accompanied his team during their five-day trip to Gaza last week, raising questions about the ability of witnesses to freely describe the militant group's actions. Not sure how crucial this is but I figured it was worth a mention. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. So far, we have: 'Israel will not participate in the inquiry'. I will add a few details to the paragraph and move it from preamble to separate subsection. Reservations/objections are welcomed. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The UN announced it has commissioned a team of experts, led by South African prosecutor Richard Goldstone, to investigate whether Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the Gaza war. Israel has stated that UN Human Rights Council, which commissioned the investigation, has a history of bias against Israel and will not participate in the inquiry or cooperate with the probe. The team was deprived of access to military sources and victims of Hamas rockets in Israel, and denied Gaza Strip entrance via Israel. The Associated Press reporter noted that Hamas security had often accompanied the team during their visit to Gaza, suggesting that the ability of witnesses to freely describe the events is questionable. At the end of a four-day fact-finding trip to Gaza, the head of the team expressed his shock by the scale of the destruction in Gaza areas. Goldstone refused to comment on the ongoing investigation's content, but announced that the team will hold public hearings with the war's victims later in June, in Gaza and Geneva.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Another possible addition: 'Alex Whiting, a professor at Harvard law school, said such cases are hard to investigate, especially without military records.';

As for the deliberations regarding trial for either side as "unlikely" - I wouldn't be rushing to put it in. After all, Whiting said there are few mechanisms for prosecution if crimes are uncovered. Moreover, 'A Hamas official, Ahmed Yousef, said he hoped the group's report would be "like ammunition in the hands of the people who are willing to sue Israeli war criminals.". --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias

You're only showing pictures of buildings in GAZA getting blown up. Maybe you'd like to mention the bombings of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.11.107 (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We use the pictures that we have available, which for this article means free images. And we do show "bombings of Israel," the kindergarten classroom in the article is an Israeli building. However, the Palestinians didnt hit as many buildings in Israel as the Israelis did in Gaza (and the ones they did hit took much less damage), so there are not a whole lot of images of Israeli buildings being flattened to show. Nableezy (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was looked to me like bias awhile ago. It might have been editors pulling what jumped out at them and not intentional. I did notice that image placement was done in a fashion that might put a priority on Gazan images and charts when they got bumped above Israeli images. Realistically, this only matters in a dick measuring contest since a few centimeters on the screen isn't a big deal unless the principle is a concern.

Also, regarding images, MOS is not being followed in the casualties section. The two Gazan ones are stacked and the Israeli woman is not related to the "other" subsection and it is placed incorrectly (directly above another subsection). Rafah buildings are also stacked. (see below) I'm not arguing bias one way or the other with it just trying to say it would be sweet if we could find a way to clean it up. I don't see how without removing one or two but doubt that would be acceptable. Kind of on the fence if I prefer aesthetics or have an inn depth visual representation on this one.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for lists

• Raffah buildings are stacked and it bleeds in to the next subsection. There are three images there to fiddle with. Any thoughts on removing any or changing the layout?
• The rocket that hit the kindergarten could use a shorter caption. This would tighten up the space allocated for the image and keep it from bleeding into the section below. What detail is not needed in the caption?
• How did the "Rocket and mortar shells from Gaza into Israel" chart get relegated to an unrelated subsection? Propose moving it to "2008 lull" section.
• Gazzan kid and lady and Israeli lady need cleanup. Gazans are stacked and almost look like too much for the text. Israeli is not properly placed in an unrelated subsection of a related section. Thoughts? (This one is a tough one)
• A rocket is fired from Gaza to Israel in December 2008 needs to be bumped down to a subsection
• Going below === subheadings is to be avoided. If we do that we will have to cut more images. Should we chose to disregard this?

Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As I always say, deaths of civilians ans especially kids is tragic and most regrettable, but I naturally object placing a picture of killed Gazzan girl - I think it serves clear POV purposes. While Hamas openly declares a wish to hurt and terrorize Israelis with the rockets, it is at least debatable to what extent Israel wanted or meant to deliberately hurt civilians. Since I am not objective on the issue - I would consent with anything you decide. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The picture of the girl is not meant to show motivations or deliberate intentions, but the actual effects. A large number of children were killed in this conflict and that picture is representative of that. 313 minors were killed according to the PCHR, 89 civilians under 16 according to the IDF. Out of 1400+ (PCHR) or 1100+ (IDF) total killed we have a picture of exactly 1 Palestinian fatality. Out of 5300+ injured Palestinians we have a picture of exactly 1. Out of 13 Israeli fatalities, 3 civilian, we have no pictures. Out of 518 wounded (including shock) Israelis we have a picture of 1. I dont see how you can say that distribution is meant to serve "clear POV purposes". The casualties of this conflict were overwhelmingly Palestinians, and the images should reflect that. Same with the destruction of the buildings. The damage caused in this conflict was overwhelmingly on the Gaza side of the border. The images should likewise reflect that basic fact. Nableezy (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Suffering and injury itself is not a clear justification for including potentially undue photographs. It would make sense to promote images that have encouraged the absurd level of civilian casualties, such as Hamas routinely using civilians as shields. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I reccommend against linking to CAMERA since most Wikipedians tend to an editor referring to them exactly the same as, say, a wizard calling forth the name of Voldemort. "Shh... Don't say that name out loud..." The Squicks (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And that picture doesnt show what you say, but that isnt the point. The point is the casualties section has images representative of the casualties. Not much more to it than that. Nableezy (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not realize it was from CAMERA. I just googled "Hamas+human shields." Yes, the picture illustrates the intentional use of civilians to deter enemy fire and absorb casualties. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I see a bunch of interested bystanders watching of their own free will. Maybe we just have different definitions of "human shield". I tend to associate the phrase with forcing someone to walk in front of you to shield you from gunfire, while holding a gun behind their back and firing over their shoulders. Thats just me though, but look on the bright side, you know how to google. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Interested bystanders? Children being casually guarded by a man with a rifle while friendly thug aims at Jews? That's a human shield. In an urban environment soldiers are obligated to avoid taking firing positions next to a crowd of children while buddy soldiers stand guard. If Marines were photographed doing this they would be court-martialed. Unfortunately standards are much lower among the Palestinian militias. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not getting into this with you, mostly because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nableezy (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

→I am going back to Nableezy's response to my post. You see, placing an image of 1 fatality out of more than 1,000 is problematic. It is true that large number of civilians and children got killed. But things must be put in a proper context. Let's once again examine the PCHR numbers - even further, let's examine purely 'civilian' casualties as listed by PCHR. There are about 900 civilian casualties listed by PCHR. If IDF attacks were deliberate and indiscriminate, one would expect to have approximately 225 boys under 18, 225 girls, 225 men and 225 women - this is a demographic distribution of the population in Gaza. However, the actual PCHR numbers are 99 girls (11%), 212 boys (24%), women 117 (13%) and 479 men (53%). You realize I hope that if we calculate the percentage of girls out of total 1400 killed, it would be 7%. So what do you do? You place 1 image of a fatality - a girl - saying it represents large number of casualties, when in fact this represents 7% of casualties. I wouldn't object this if indeed the numbers would suggest deliberate and indiscriminate attack on civil population. But PCHR own numbers suggest otherwise, there are total of 970 men killed out of 1400 (69%), vast majority of them are combat-age men. So I repeat - it is most regrettable those kids got killed, but look at the numbers, at the proportion and try to understand what effect you produce with that single image. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First, the image is not meant to say that an Israeli pilot saw this girl enter her home and decided to drop a bomb on it. The extrapolations you are making, while I have seen them in the think tank articles you were using, in my opinion is not that valuable. Nobody is claiming that Israel initiated a mass carpet-bombing when they make allegations of violating distinction principles. But they are saying that on specific instances Israel attacked location that were civilian targets, so I dont see the point in comparing a situation were Israel killed every single person in Gaza and what happened just to look at the percentages. But if we have to look at the percentages then let me take a crack at it; I dont see much of a difference between a picture of a young boy and a picture of a young girl so I would combine the two into pictures of children. Using both the PMoH and the PCHR numbers the casualties, both killed and injured, are about 33-35% of the total (consistent across killed, injured, and combined). I personally think that a figure so large should be represented. Beyond that, we use the pictures we have available (and again it would be very difficult to claim fair use for a casualty picture in this article, we are almost restricted to using free images). There was a picture that had been used of policemen being killed on the Arabic article (top pic in this article (courtesy warning: that article contains the picture of the burned baby for those who dont want to see such things)) but that is a non-free image with what I feel is bullshit fair-use argument. If we have a picture of a male casualty I would not be opposed to replacing the injured woman, but with 33% of the casualties being children I dont see how you can argue that should not be represented. Keep in mind that this image is in the casualties section and not in the international law section next to coverage of violating laws of distinction, no motive or intent is given by the image. It is there to represent 33% of all the casualties in this conflict. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't mention IDF figures, I ask in return to spare me from PMoH ones. Let's stick to PCHR ones - 313 children below 18 out of 1400 killed is 22%. Add to this 8% of killed women. I still don't understand why there is an image of a killed girl and a woman - 30% of killed, and no representation of 70% of killed (vast majority of which are combat-aged males). Now I understand the problem with images - I would prefer no images at all. One more thing I can't help adding - you say 'the images should reflect basic facts' - no my friend, not facts but a context. Do you remember how many British civilians got killed in German aviation bombardments in WWII? Do you realize that even more German civilians got killed during a single night in Dresden? And how many civilians of US were killed in WWII? Compare this number to Japanese fatalities and tell me to what extent does an article about WWII cover this basic facts? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence made me laugh so I'll abide by your request. But real quick, the woman isnt dead and like I said earlier I would be fine replacing that with an image of a man, or having the fatality be a man and the injury be a child. But pictures are needed, and indeed you will find them in countless war articles. Standard practice to illustrate sections. Would you have a problem with a fatality picture of a man and an injury picture of a child? Also bear in mind that nobody has complained of an elderly Israeli woman being pictured when over 64% of the injuries and 76% of the deaths among Israelis were soldiers (which is quite a bit higher a rate of soldiers than Hamas, if we really wanted to talk about statistical arguments for whether or not Hamas targets civilians; that argument isnt necessary we both know the answer just saying that the numbers cant be used like that) Nableezy (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

'nobody has complained of an elderly Israeli woman being pictured' - I assure you that each time I opened the casualties section I thought about it - I find all the images there horrible (not because I don't have sympathy to terrorized people in Israeli south (my family happens to be one) or to uninvolved Palestinian kids) because in my opinion they are incoherent with the context. I never truly touched this subject before for one simple reason - I have more important issues to focus and until that's done, I don't have time to argue too much about infoboxes and images. So, I don't object too much to just leave it meanwhile the way it is or to consent with changes made by more neutral editor like Cptnono the way he sees fit. But in general, if my opinion has the slightest value here - I don't like images there, especially of that killed kid, because they bear too much emotional load. I would recommend to remove them all until we find time to work it out. Now if you excuse me, I have an unfinished work at IntLaw section. I hope to find time later today to leave some answers there and to rework the subsection referring to attacks on civil targets and police. As usual, any constructive help would be appriciated. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I made several changes but didn't touch the casualties section. Unfortunately, we simply do not have room for all three as they are now. Pretending they were all pictures of pears (or your preferred fruit) and not something as contentious as hurt or dead people, how can the three images be organized?Cptnono (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Tried fiddling with it. I don't love it so feel free to adjustCptnono (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I placed the girl image next to the paragraph discussing Palestinian casualties, the Israeli one next to that, removed the woman. Will look through the cc al-jazeera footage to see if I can get one with police to fit into the disputed figures section. Nableezy (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Found one of an injured policeman, will place that in the disputed figures subsection. Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to show the Israeli side but the image of the woman sucks layout wise.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just having the Israeli woman next to the Palestinian casualties text with the Palestinian casualties in the dispute figure subsection didnt make any sense. At least like this the images are actually pertinent to the text that it is next to. Nableezy (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There just isn't enough text to allow for a tall image. Has anyone seen any other images that could replace it?Cptnono (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Finished replacement of Palestinian woman pic, now there is an injured policeman in the disputed figures section in instead. Nableezy (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but ... i don't know... the images are very powerful weapons. Take a look how they are used in this report: Never Again. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are saying that we (WP) are using it as propaganda I dont see the relevance of that. Yes these images can be exploited, information is always used as the basis for propaganda. What we need to do is just present the information, and the pictures we do have cam after a long, somewhat acrimonious dispute on what images should be in the article. The fact is that terrible things happened in this conflict, but WP reporting those terrible things neutrally and accurately is not a bad thing. Nableezy (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

reporting those terrible things neutrally and accurately is indeed a good thing. I merely ask to consider the usage of the images very cautiously. The image, as one of a killed girl, catches the eye and produces strong emotional response - and this is exactly what the author of this "Never Again" does. Think about the hostage situation - a criminal takes a little girl as a hostage and in the rescue operation she got killed from the police bullet. What would a typical average man think? Would he be patient enough to read the whole article, to see the complete picture? anyway, i don't want to expand this further, if both you and Cptnono think it is fine and it was discussed before - fine. Just keep in mind what i said. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)