Talk:Gaza War/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 20

Attacks on medical facilitites and workers - subsection needed

I want to combine this information with that of the 21 medical workers being killed, amon g other details in the article and other sources. Any objections? Tiamuttalk 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, but keep in mind that I'll add info about Hamas terrorists disguising as doctors and nurses: [1]. Rabend (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Doctors, nurses, policemen, teachers, parliamentarians, women, children -- they're all just "Terrorists" with a capital "T"! Kill them all! -- Is this what it has come to? Wouldn't it be easier to simply question the violent ideology that paints the world in such a paranoid fashion? NonZionist (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The article that Rabend has linked does not contain "info about Hamas terrorists disguising as doctors and nurses." It contains info about the head of Shin Beth making the claim that Hamas terrorists are disguised as doctors and nurses. Editors who are unable to distinguish between "xyz" and "wartime propaganda of one side claims xyz" should probably not be editors. <eleland/talkedits> 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Please do! Here are other stories (2009-01-12) that need to be integrated into this article:
About the white phosporous section. The human right watch press release (the reuters link) says that observed suspected WP munitions were used for smoke screens, in accordance with international convention, and unlike e.g. coalition use in Iraq. The section gives the impression it is used illegaly, perhaps there are better sources? The FT link is a bit unclear what exactly is denied, IMHO, would be a better reference? Nice pictures, too. kzm (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
We should compile a list of the stories that do not make it into the article, for the benefit of people who prefer reality to Israeli propaganda. NonZionist (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Or Palestinian propaganda? Like it or not, there are two sides to this issue. To say that Hamas is fighting for Liberty/Jeffersonian Democracy/a British Parliamentary system or pluralism is like suggesting that William Wallace was fighting for Truth, Democracy and the American way. They are fighting for a "justice" which is not justice as I might see it and a Middle East devoid of a single living Jew. V. Joe (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, V. Joe, you are arguing against a long-dead stereotype, not against reality. That's WHY I am not persuaded by your rhetoric. I started out, long ago, as a supporter of Israel -- then I took a closer look. I invite you to do the same. What you find will astonish you.
Regarding your point above, the Palestinian Charter explicitly INCLUDES native Jews in its definition of "Palestinian". See Article 6: "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians." And if you read the Hamas Charter with an open mind, you will see again that the purpose of the organization is to resist the "Nazi-like" behavior of an invading force, not to combat Jews in general. Here is one Hamas leader:

As Salah Shehadeh himself said in an interview last May, "We do not fight Jews because they are Jews, but because they are occupying our lands. We do not fight them because of their faith, but because they are violating our rights."
-- Wendy Pearlman, "Israel's Indifference to Civilian Lives", Washington Report, Sep-Oct 2002, pages 8-9

Israel was so eager to kill Shehadeh, that it dropped a 1-ton bomb on his apartment building on July 22, 2002, killing 15 people, including 9 children. In so doing, Israel proved Shehadeh right. People do not fight Israel because it is Jewish. They fight it because it is "fascist". Israel tries to hide its fascism behind ethnicity, but with each Israeli act of aggression, that becomes more difficult. NonZionist (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Non-Zionist: How would you segregate "Native Jews" from "non-Native Jews?" V. Joe (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Very simply, V. Joe: I would regard as "native" any Jews who are willing to SHARE the land and CO-EXIST as EQUALS with Palestinians. That is how the native people -- Jews, Muslims, and Christians -- managed to live together in peace for centuries. They lived together as EQUALS, with equal rights. I would make that spiritual commitment to equality the criterion for determining who belongs in Palestine and who doesn't. This, however, is a discussion that we need to move to a user talk page. The article talk page is already overloaded. NonZionist (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So far nine Israeli kindergartens and school have been directly hit by Hammas rockets in this conflict. No casualties were reported since Israel has suspended school in the southern areas. If we start mentioning each and every so called "civilian" target hit by the IDF, we should start a new section of civilians targets in Israel hit by Hamas. I assure you this section will be much longer. I suggest we try to keep our focus on notable incidents were multiple casualites have been reported, or poses some other unique importance (such as the Dignity)--Omrim (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Hamas has the resources or ingenuity to be called upon to defend 'justice' or concoct a plan to rid the world of a group of people. The name of the game for them is simply survival; the secular function being "survival of the featest". Cryptonio (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It certainly lacks the means, but if you followed Hamas's declarations and manifests over the years, one of its main purposes is the total destruction of Israel, and it routinely denies the Holocaust ever happened. Interestingly, it suggests that Zionists achieved the Balfour declaration thru the use of secret societies, such as the Freemasons. Rabend (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Please substantiate this accusation. I've been told to avoid soapboxing and focus exclusively on the article. May I ask that you do the same? At the very least, please avoid the use of dehumanizing or demonizing stereotypes, Rabend. You may think this kind of propaganda hurts Palestinians, but it also hurts Israelis, because it leaves them ill-equipped to develop a reqalistic understanding of their relation to neighboring peoples. NonZionist (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
And the 'West', the EU, the US, the 'FREE WORLD' all of them also lack the 'means' for their 'overstated' claims and civic responsibilities, their 'wet dreams' of a 'perfect society'...yet, do you blame them for trying?...are these loftier goals? should we pursue these at any cost necessary? my answer is not to pursue them btw. Cryptonio (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a section for attacks on medical facilities, after reading the two articles you cited above. This is unspeakable evil! What I added is just a start: The section needs to be expanded, and information from the articles below needs to be added. NonZionist (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is notable that medical facilities and services are being attacked or otherwise having their work impeded. See also:

So is the fact that Israeli medical facilities and services as well as schools and kindergartens are being attacked or otherwise having their work impeded, also notable? By all means, lets add two sections: Civilian facilities hit by Israel, and civilian facilities hit by Hamas. I suspect we might want to start a new article on this issue... bottom line: I still think it is a bad idea.--Omrim (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There are many such attacks on both sides, and this article is too long as it is. Rabend (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
(Hm, I wonder which side has conducted the greater number of attacks?) The subsection is needed. Trachys (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Israel is targeting medics Trachys (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see that the subsection was created obviously without a cosensus, with such lovely descriprions as "untended starving children clinging to their dead parents, dogs and rats eating the bodies of the victims", and bullet points describing in much detail specific incidents. Please, this is not a contest to prove "who's the cruelest side in the conflict". Rabend (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but without images we're left with words. Images could speak for themselves if we had any. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean? Rabend (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
To quote from Wikipedia For example the Russian writer Ivan Turgenev wrote (in Fathers and Sons in 1862), "A picture shows me at a glance what it takes dozens of pages of a book to expound." Or if you prefer For example "pictorial forms offer a high bandwidth mechanism of communication - pictures and images may be easier to assimilate than text" (Barker & Manji, 1989)....that's all. The old a picture is worth a thousand lies words thing. If we had a good set of pictures that faithfully described this event then people would be more able to make their own minds up about these matters. Pretty pointless comment because we don't. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Um, there's a reason that encyclopedias tend to focus more on words than on images. Because words are better suited to convey complex data. That's kind of why we invented language. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC) let's replace every single graph and image and map with text then and improve the article for readers. Primates didn't invent functionally referential communication so I'd like to contest that statement on behalf the stingless bees of south amaerica and all of their fellow social insect buddies around the world. Have a look at James Nieh's work at UCSD....which is neither here nor there of oourse. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 :) Yes, but we still invented words. Nobody can take that away from us. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
..depends what you mean by words, combinations of sounds or combinations of hydrocarbons etc etc...let's not go there. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Trachys, you'll be surprised. Of the 500 rockets or so fired at Israel so far about 40% hit open spaces. Almost all the others hit civilian tragtes. If you wish we can have a section with (60% of 500) 300 bullets describing rockets attacks on civilian infrastructure. Is that what you want us to do?--Omrim (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, This is very upsetting. We are trying to discuss stuff here, and then someone simply ignores the talk page and add stuff - which is in controversy - at will. This is a sure way to create editing battles. I am storngly disappointed with the addition of the section while the issue is still being discussed. This is hardly productive, and does not show good faith, to say the least. --Omrim (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Omrim, I understand your frustration. I think though that you can concede that the mutliple reports on medical facilities and workers being hit in Israeli strikes are notable. Yiou are correct to suggest that the damage sustained to civilian infrastructure in Israel is also notable. Might I suggest you add such information to the section on "Effects of Israelis" as a subsection entitled, "Damage to civilian insfrastructure"? There's a good summary of the damage at Haaretz from a report released by the Shabak yesterday. Tiamuttalk 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli plans for a military option

Proposed addition to article: "The operation had reportedly been in planning since mid 2007, when Ehud Barak was appointed Israel's Minister of Defense,[118] shortly after the Hamas administration had pre-empted and suppressed an attempted American-backed coup by Fatah militants,[119] a full a year before the approximate time that the temporary cease-fire between Israel and Hamas was signed. The operation is consistent with the objectives and methods advocated in the 1996 "Clean Break" plan authored by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and other prominent neo-conservatives: "reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation", a "new strategic agenda [that] can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies", "seiz[ing] the strategic initiative ... engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran".
Richard Perle (1996). "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Retrieved 2009-01-12.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Justin Raimondo (2009-01-12). "Gaza Is the Future". Retrieved 2009-01-12.  NonZionist (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The antiwar site is not a reliable source for this subject, and connecting a 12 year old book with a current crisis is original synthesis unless you can find some evidence that it actually inspired some element of the planning or execution of the Israeli operation. Avruch T 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll look for RS articles that connect the dots. My point is that military operations are rarely as capricious as the article suggests: Generally, these operations are an integral part of a long-term strategic plan. Although "Clean Break" was hatched twelve years ago, the implementation of the plan continues today. The 2003 take-over of Iraq was the first step in this plan, and the 2006 aggression against Lebanon the second. E.g.,

"This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right ... An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran" -- Clean Break

I believe that the article needs to address the relation between Operation Cast Lead and Israel's long-term plan for the region! NonZionist (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are two articles that address the larger picture:

First off, Israel has no interest in stopping its military mission until its primary aims have been achieved, and those aims appear to be evolving from simply stopping rocket fire into southern Israel into what Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni calls "changing the equation" in Gaza — i.e., hobbling Hamas to the point that it loses control of Gaza. The Israelis believe they have Hamas on the ropes, and may be in no hurry to back off from trying to deal a mortal blow to the radical group. That means their diplomatic posture will be to seek more time for their military operation and then to hold out for truce terms that essentially codify a military disabling of Hamas.
-- Bruce Crumley (2009-01-06). "European Peace Efforts on Gaza Hit Roadblocks". Time. Retrieved 2009-01-06. 


The goal for Israel is to use its military superiority to achieve a number of long-term goals, starting with weakening Hamas and detering future attacks. It also wants to implement new security arrangements on the border between Egypt and Gaza, and ensure no formal ceasefire is put in place, giving it freedom to act if it judges necessary.
-- "Gaza Crisis: Israel's strategy in Gaza". 2009-01-06. Retrieved 2009-01-12. 

NonZionist (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's are three more sources that argue that aggression against the Gaza Strip is inspired by Perle's incendiary 1996 "Clean Break" plan:

Washington insiders report that the Bush administration's coordination with Israel in the attacks on Hamas and Hezbollah involve the official adoption of the white paper, "A Clean Break: New Strategies for Securing the Realm," as U.S. policy. The "Clean Break" document, authored in 1996 by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and other neocon operatives, was written at the same time the program for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was drawn up by the same neocon players.
-- Wayne Madsen (2006-07-20). "Lebanon and Gaza invasions planned last month in USA meetings with top Israeli officials". Indy News Israel. Retrieved 2009-01-12. 


Israel’s present battle-plan originated with a policy paper that was written by former Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle and (Bush administration officials) David Wurmser and Douglas Feith. The document, which was titled “A Clean Break; Strategy for Securing the (Israeli) Realm” provides the details of Israel’s plan to topple potential rivals in the region and redraw the map of the Middle East. .... This shows that Israel is not acting irrationally or spontaneously, but executing a carefully considered master plan for crushing potential enemies and reconfiguring the Middle East to accommodate the modern Israeli kingdom. (Hence, the pretentious euphemism “Securing the Realm”) This is the war that Israel wanted from the very beginning; a final showdown with arch-nemesis Hezbollah, followed by confrontations with Damascus and Tehran. It’s all in Perle’s blueprint for “total war.”
-- Mike Whitney (2006-07-23). "One Giant Gaza Strip from the Caspian to the Red Sea". Global Research. Retrieved 2009-01-12. 


The plan proceeds according to plan, with the fabrication and/or exaggeration of the rocket attacks on Israeli cities claiming the casualties on the Israeli side as though the culprit is Hamas or some other faction in Palestine on the west side (Gaza strip), therefore the brute force of Israeli attacks is warranted. The Neocons scrambled to press the panic button, hoping that the miracle of "A Clean Break" by taking advantage of the new, worsening conflict will save face of the Neoconservative Zionist cabal in the vision of total hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia after the catastrophic strategic failure in the aftermath of Iraq & Afghanistan wars.
-- Nepos Libertas. "ISRAEL seeks "clean break" to ensnare Iran/Syria into the war after "shoah" attacks on Gaza & Lebanon". Retrieved 2009-01-12. 

NonZionist (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
A website called "Wake Up From Your Slumber" is a reliable source? The Squicks (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think, and this is my own humble opinion so NonZionist please correct me if I am wrong, but one of his arguments is that the so-called reliable source is really nothing more than propaganda regurgitated by the media. Recent history would tell us he is right, especially as regards the mainstream American media. Unfortunately, the RS policy doesnt do much to address this valid, i think at least, concern, so we are forced to use only what the 'establishment' wants us to read. But no, I dont think a website called 'Wake Up From Your Slumber' could be considered a RS under wiki policy. Nableezy (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

+ -

(1) Please feel free to get back off WP:Soap


(2) Please define RS according to your own definition. I seem to get the feeling that "RS" when referring to this conflict means "agrees with Non-Zionist."


(3) The NYT is a RS, but it not without merits and corrects itself (usually) when it is wrong. It also claims a clear distinction (often imperfect) between its editorial position, its op-ed articles and News Articles. does none of these things, and is clearly an advocacy website. Other reliable sources from various parts of the political spectrum (editorially) include Mother Jones (Left-wing) The Nation , National Review (right-wing), The Daily Telegraph (center-right), Der Spiegel (center-left), Le Monde (center-left), etc. These publications make a clear distinction between reporting and editing. They also have ombudsmen to correct mistakes as to facts, misprints, etc.


(a) Even so, just because a publication (website) is considered out of the "mainstream" today doesn't mean it wouldn't be tomorrow. Consider the Village Voice.


(b) A source which is less than reliable for current news, might be quite reliable for different articles. For instance, if were to publish an obituary about a former-editor or a peace activist, I doubt any of us here would qualify it as a non-reliable source. An article on G.W. Bush or Tony Blair, not so much. V. Joe (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to defend WUFYS either -- though I agree with the passage quoted. Yes, WP:RS is a synonym for "Billion-Dollar Corporate Media Supportive of Israel" (WP:BDCMSI). These media are not actually reliable, as hte prelude to aggression against Iraq shows -- remember how Judith Miller peddled WMD's in the NYT?! Truly reliable sources --, for example -- are not tagged WP:RS, and never will be. It doesn't matter how often these upstream sources are right and how often the Establishment media are wrong: Their voice is excluded from the debate, because wikipedia needs to gain the imprimatur of the "Mainstream", and that blessing is not given to sites that lend credibility to critics of Israel. NonZionist (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This suggested section is beyond the scope of this article. Additionally, I doubt we could get reliable sources for this matter that wouldn't necessitate intense original synthesis on our side, in order to make this anything beyond what seems like a conspiracy theory. Rabend (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I stroongly agree with Avruch and Rabend, non-Zionist. It is hard enough getting the facts straight and the chronology of significant events succinctly complete and neutral. Your considerations are meta-theory and lend themselves to legitimate queries about violations of WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, let alone many others. That is the sort of thing one can only broach, tentatively, several years down the road when Reliable Sources, and reliable historians, analyse these events, and provide editors with their interpretations. Most of the articles out there I read and agree with, I don't even think of introducing here, since they are opinions, POV editorials, etc., and as such, whatever their authority, not material to what is the priority here, establishing a fair record of events, and substantive declarations made by the parties, or competent bodies.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to pile on too. I also cannot help but notice the "coincidence" that all of this OR seems to blame "Neo-Conservatives" and others who seem to be on the hate list for the sort of folks who believe in Jewish conspiracies and other nonsense. Also, Original Research is very much NOT kosher (I couldn't resist). Unlike Nishdani, I don't agree with your conclusions, NZ, but lets leave the bloviating in the talk page if we must have it all. Thanks V. Joe (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to "pile on", V. Joe. But ask yourself this question: Have the neo-cons EVER been wrong about ANYTHING? Can you think of any occasion when they have been wrong? And one more question: Why do you insist on bringing Jews into a political discussion? Can you see any difference at all between politics and ethnicity? NonZionist (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, yes, they have, I doubt you would consider that they are the same things I would consider wrong. Their views on Israel and Hamas are not one of them. But what Neo-cons view or do not view are largely a concern internal to the United States and have little bearing on Israel or Hamas. V. Joe (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Nishidani, this puts opponents of fascism at a big disadvantage. We are forced to pretend that each new act of aggression is not part of some larger plan. This tunnel vision limits us. Would Chamberlain have given away the Sudeten, if he had known that the Germans saw the Sudeten merely as a stepping stone to a global war? (Actually, he may well have, since I believe that global war was his aim too!) The point is, the aggressors already have most of the advantages: We can hardly afford to give them more, by tying our own hands. Couldn't we say something like this:

Some sources state that Israel is simply responding to homemade rockets. Some state that the Israeli attack is motivated by the political needs of the Kadima party. And some state that the attack is motivated by a much larger strategic vision.

NonZionist (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot that go unheeded! Chamberlain did NOT desire war with the Germans, anymore than the average Briton did. No sane person who survived world war one would ever want a second one.
As for ":::

Some sources state that Israel is simply responding to homemade rockets. Some state that the Israeli attack is motivated by the political needs of the Kadima party. And some state that the attack is motivated by a much larger strategic vision.

. I'm sorry, but those are WP:weasel if I have ever heard it. V. Joe (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand this "weasel words" catch-phrase, V. Joe. Can you explain in your own terms why you object to my phrasing?
What Chamberlain may have desired is war between Germany and the U.S.S.R., with the spoils going to the British Empire. Building up Hitler while pretending to seek "Peace in our Time" probably seemed like the quickest way to get such a war going -- just another case of "divide and conquer". What Chamberlain didn't count on was the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. You see, V. Joe, history is not always what it seems like on the surface. We live in a paradoxical world. People who don't understand that are easily fooled and played.
I'd love to continue this discussion, but not here. When you post here, I ask that you be somewhat less abusive and more respectful. I am not an ignorant savage. Neo-con? -- been there, done that. I was a National Review subscriber way back in the 1970s, and I found that paranoid hyper-militaristic ideology very seductive. Then I got a glimpse of the real world. LOL! Think of me as a de-programmer. Does that help? NonZionist (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Weasel refers to the 'some say this, some say that', something the wiki frowns upon, as it is not 'encyclopedic prose'. If there are some that say this, say who they are. Nableezy (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And while it may 'puts opponents of fascism at a big disadvantage' it is in fact the wikipedia policy that is doing so, so unless you can successfully change those policies (and im gonna go out on a limb and say it wont happen) then the disadvantage will remain. Nableezy (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Parliamentarian's call for use of nuclear weapons

I added the following edit to the article, describing an Israeli politican's call for use of nuclear weapons. [1] -- (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I will now hereby dispute your edit as on no efficient grounds, the source you provided is ambiguous, people can essentialy interpret mr Liebermans statement as either Israel, henceforth know as they, need to fight Hamas into exhaustion, or they need to nuclear bomb Hamas into submission. Either explanation to mr Liebermans statement is very likely, so I hereby pronounce your edit not enough sourced and await the judgement of a senior editor. By the way, the United States did not nuke Japan into submission, the US exhausted Japans capability to wage a war long before the atombombs(eg strategic bombing of cities, factories, sinking oil tankers et cetera) in stark contrast to common belief. Gsmgm (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I already removed it. And I also think that exhaustion was Liberamn's intention, and not the use of atomic bombs, which are not mentioned at all in the quote. Rabend (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The facts, as reported by numerous sourced including AFP, JPost and others, are that Israeli leader Avigdor Lieberman called for the use of nuclear weapons against Palestinians in Gaza. "We must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II" to "break the will" of Hamas in Gaza. The meaning here is clear. Further, the threat of nuclear attack is a notable event. If you want to harm the quality of the article, by spending all day making sure the article says only what you want it to say, then I won't waste my time arguing with you. But it's a shame to see a useful resource controlled in such a way. -- (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
One needs a full transcript of the original speech. From two sources I have checked, including the Jerusalem Post, any assertion that he called for the use of Nuclear Weapons against Gaza would be nothing more than an inference from his analogy, and therefore improper for wiki. The US (Japan) did nuke Japan into submission, however, and Gsmgm errs in denying this. At most Liebermann's language might be construed as intentional ambiguous. We are in election time and he is talking to a specific constituency. But it is not our business to make inferences within the article.Nishidani (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe you may have said Japan one too many times ; ) As for the above, such a conclusion is really putting words in someone's mouth unless he specifically mentioned atomic weapons, the bomb drop, etc.Joshdboz (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip-off. I've corrected the ouroboric idiocy of my original formulation. I always do this before meals. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely defer, first United States did actually nuke Japan but it was on the VERY LAST STAGES of the war(actually one of the last events), to show the russians the new american wonder weapon, it had no impact on the japanese capability to wage a war, for example, a firebombing run on Tokyo caused more casualties than the nuke on Hiroshima. Yes, I have visited your source mr/miss/mrs, and I view it as not proving your point clear enough to state that mr Lieberman wants to nuke Hamas, if I am a minority with this view I shall refer it to more senior editors(even admin if nescesary) and not personally engage. Also, I view your statement of "If you want to harm the quality of the article, by spending all day making sure the article says only what you want it to say, then I won't waste my time arguing with you." as an personal attack and will make an reminder to WP:No Personal Attacks. By the way, on your dastardly attack on my person: I will and do not wish to argue with anyone on this at all! But refer to more experienced editors to argue. Yours Most Sincerely Gsmgm (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Lets skip any question about US justifications, but I don;t feel that the additional of a comment by an otherwise obscure legislator represents the Israeli government anymore than the commentary of Cynthia McKinney or John Kerry or Pat Buchanan represent the policy of the United States. As someone said above "lets not add everything Israel does bad" to the article and lets stick with things that have some bearing on the conduct of this conflict V. Joe (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur with mr Valentines comment, and view this part of the talk as derailed. Gsmgm (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just on a matter of logic (setting aside the historical literature which is almost unanimous on this), the bomb was dropped only in the last stages of the war because by dropping the bomb, the US forced Japan into surrender, and, ipso facto, by that surrender, allowed this act to be classified as occurring in the last stages of the war.
I disagree on the second part. This remark is not insignificant because it comes from what someone calls 'an obscure legislator'. Liebermann is by no means obscure. A cardinal, not the Pope,'s likening of the situation in Gaza to a concentration camp got worldwide coverage, and may finish up here for all I know. I am opposed, for the moment, for entering this as it was first proposed into the text. But it is not to be dismissed out of hand that in secondary review, taking into consideration whatever statements might end up attributed to political figures during the war, it may well received renewed attention, in the form, 'AL recommended fighting Hamas as the US fought the Japanese in WW2'.Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I need to see over my english, we all get a little overheated sometimes don't we? Quote: "setting aside the historical literature which is almost unanimous on this" end quote, well I'm the one who refuse to set aside anything sometimes :), and therefore disliked any attempt to view the nukes as war-deciding factors. Gsmgm (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the second(your) version lookes much more better thean the original highly controversial version. Gsmgm (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
..sorry, I just noticed this thread. Israel has atomic bombs ???? Shocking! Let's hope Iran doesn't find out about this because, well you know, something unpleasant might happen.... :) Sean.hoyland - talk 07:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sean, I don't think the Iranians would discover this plot, firstly, they don't look at wikipedia because we are "decadent westerners", secondly do they even look at Jerusalem Post or Agence France Presse? But if they do, we all better buy ourselves a nuke proof bomb shelter(or start massevacuating to Antarctica). :) Gsmgm (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, even a responsible Iranian government would look over the foreign press. The current incarnation of the Iranian government most certainly looks over the public opinions of the Western democracies, especially the Israeli, American and other "enemies of the Revolution" They'd be damned fools not to. V. Joe (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

new lead

We are discussing a new modified lead in /Lead#My_long_subsection._Sorry, so far it is just me and one other editor, so I would ask that others please contribute to the discussion. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Could people please comment on the below as a proposed first paragraph of the lead:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[29] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[30][31][32] Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎). The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War (Arabic: الحرب غزة, Hebrew: (i have no idea)). (with sources for both hebrew and arabic usage).
Thoughts? And since people keep messing with the current lead paragraph I am restoring it to what it was for the time being until we reach consensus on something else. Nableezy (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
New and improved (with references for arabic, still need hebrew name and sources to add)
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[2] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[3][4][5] Hamas, the government of Gaza, has named the conflict the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎)[6][7][8]. The Arab and Israeli media have widely termed it the Gaza War (Arabic:الحرب غزة, Hebrew: (i have no idea)) [9][10]. (with sources for hebrew usage).
Oppose. The proposed lead implies that only Hamas termed the offense as Gazza Massacre. This is not true since a big portion of the Arab media also did so (we've showed a sample in Archive 9 and the BBC Arabic and Aljazeera articles). So now, the opponents of the gazza massacre term say that 2 references is enough for "Gaza War" while 10 wasn't enough for the Gazza Massacre? --Darwish07 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at /Lead#My_long_subsection._Sorry. I think that there was a point where most of the arab news sites were using the term, but that appears to have shifted. Just looking at aljazeera and alarabiyya and bbc arabic you dont find that they use the term as much as Gaza War or War on Gaza. I think the massacre name has to stay because Hamas has used it as the name, and they are one of the two main parties in this conflict. And I can honestly say I am not proposing this under pressure from the opponents of the massacre term, just the arguments JGGardiner made on the lead page were very convincing, at least in my view. Nableezy (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the lead is well-balanced. You truly did a great job. Some Hebrew sources for Gaza War, in Hebrew: מלחמת עזה are: [2], [3], [4] --Omrim (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but the majority of the credit goes to JGGardiner, his contributions on the lead page were truly impressive. But anyways, here is the new final version of the proposed lead:
If anybody objects to this being placed in the article, please object. Nableezy (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only Hamas called it a massacre; a good part of the Arab media on the internet also did so. So I would like something like: "Hamas and parts of the Arab media named the conflict Gaza Massacre".(didn't read above nableezy reply) --Darwish07 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a very good draft edit which resulted from some great understanding, discussion and compromise. Yes, those things can happen on this talk page – I swear I haven’t been smoking anything. I think it is fair, reasonable and NPOV. It is well-written and I think adaptable to whatever modifications will undoubtedly come in the future. To be sure, it isn’t exactly what I would have written if I were allowed to write the article myself and I’m actually happier that is the case because it makes me feel good to know that compromise can work here. It is easy to get depressed scrolling down these talk pages but now I feel much better. I’d definitely urge everyone to support this. Thanks.

And if there is support for me writing the articles by myself, that’s cool too. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And it isnt exactly what I would write if I were to do it on my own, I probably wouldnt mention the 'targeting Hamas members and infrastructure' or at least change it to 'targeting Hamas and Gaza infrastructure'. But I can deal with reasonable compromise, and I think this is that. And if you want to write it by yourself, Im down, might actually sleep and accomplish something at work :) Nableezy (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I posted on the "lead" page as well, but here goes. I still support staying with current tight wording: The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, intensified on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC) when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas. The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in much of the Arab World." I would however support dropping "(11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)" down into the body of the story. The proposed new lead is more complex, therefore more can go wrong. NOW, if use of the term "Gaza War" is as widespread as suggested (and it appears to be), then maybe we should rename the article accordingly. RomaC (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Another suggested version, this is being discussed on the lead page. Please join. Nableezy (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The version at the top of the section is indeed better than the current. Just like as real life should, it reflects compromise on both sides. You win some, you lose some, and the result is fairly balaned.
I do agree with RomaC above about dropping the exact hour and all that, as this thing is already 20-days-long. Rabend (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is now being discussed on this talk page further down, please everybody make your thought known down here Nableezy (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding section on Gaza conflict and antisemitism

I just did Yahoo news search for this subject, and please do not tell me it is a minor, non-existing problem. There should be a section in the article about it with at least one image.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you mean this?--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

" Claims U.S. Senate Resolution Promotes Anti-Semitism

According to, by voicing strong support of Israel and proactively siding with Israel in this conflict, the U.S. Senate has unwittingly escalated anti-Semitism against U.S. Jews and is endangering Jews worldwide." as per [5]. --Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There has not been any significant increase in antisemitism due to the this specific conflict. Although some people are expressing antisemitic views, that's nothing new, and is not directly related to the issue at hand. In fact, almost all protests have focused on criticism of Israel, the occupation of Gaza, and the current Israel-Gaza conflict. What's more, considering that there's not even one image of casualties within Gaza, having an image of a minor trend of antisemitic rhetoric doesn't seem appropriate. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Put that in, and you'll have protests from the Commons. Read the Hansard debates over these past two days in the British Parliament, and, if you take protest to be something that gives rise to suspicions of antisemitic motivations here, then a significant number of British parliamentarians, including Sir Gerald Kaufman, can be dismissed as voicing the old stain of hatred for the Jewish people, and Kaufman becomes an exemplar of Jewish self-hatred. True, as Frederick Raphael often reminds us in his essays and books, a strain of antisemitism is to be found in all sorts of place, unlikely ones at that, and one catches it often in many respectable public figures in England, but not for that reason can one then construe all protest from such figures reductively as nothing but antisemitism. Balfour, according to Cosima Wagner, was an antisemite. Less studied is the way anti-Jewish feelings have reformed themselves, or transferred themselves with exquisite irony recently, into a barely concealed reflex contempt for 'Arabs', who have also long been the object of imperial hauteur and contempt, but have never had an intellectual class capable of challenging the stereotype. They should learn from their Jewish brethren.
I'm old enough to remember McCarthyism, and to be tutored by survivors of the Holocaust. Don't muddy the waters with trivia from the propaganda war. You only get what you look for by googling.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This topic has a section in the International reaction article, where it should be. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

attacks on temples and other jewish sites have increased because of the conflict.-- (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on journalists and media installations

Do journalists and the media believe that they are immune from the effects of war. I am not speaking of deliberate targeting I am talking about dumb bullets et al. In every conflict, in my experience when I was in the Former Yugoslavia during that unpleasantness, the media continuously claimed that they were being targeted by all sides. They eventually took to taking precautions such as wearing body armor and riding around in armored vehicles.--Tomtom9041 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the case here. I find it hard to believe that Israel would specifically target international journalists, since there is absolutely nothing to gain from that (Hamas media installations are a different matter, naturally). Presenting it with this header might be falsely implying intent, but I welcome others to voice their opinion as well. Rabend (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is to blame for the lull's end

This is a long one, so bear with me. I have several issues with the cease-fire section: - Due to the highly controversial nature (as well as the complexity) of the issue we decided, as I recall, to simply state each side's position on the issue (basically each side blaming the other). I think we achieved a consensus on this two or three days after the conflict started. By now, however the section has turned to be a very non-neutral one. Any remotely intelligent reader would assume/conclude after reading the section that Israel is to blame for the lull end. This can easily be challenged by citing major media outlets. For example MSNBC summarized that "An Egyptian-brokered truce between Hamas and Israel, intended to halt Hamas missiles from being fired into Israel and stop Israeli incursions into Gaza, lapsed on Dec. 19. Almost immediately dozens of rockets were fired into southern Israel and the Israeli military responded with its offensive on Dec. 27." [6] As you see, no mention of the blockade. Very simple "truth" so called. There are dozens more like this as I am sure there are dozens stating the exact opposite. I have no intention to suggest we should cite such a simplistic picture of the issue, but we should also not imply whose fault it is. So far for the exposition, no for the specifics: We present 98% decrease of rocket attack while only "some" increase in aid coming into Gaza. I have already compromised about the 98% issue, and I am still good on it, yet, in its current form the 98% issue presents several major flaws (which are explained by the simple fact that it is, after all, original research):

  • The 70 to 90 increase in trucks load is taken from an NYT article. The very same article also states the number of rockets fired to Israel, which is significantly higher than the one used to make the 98% estimation. However, instead of using NYT, we are using another source (Israel MFA) for the rocket data. IT IS original research to take one set of data from one source (MFA) and to compare it with another set of data from another source (NYT), all the more were both sources provide data for BOTH rockets and aid issue. MFA publishes regularly number of trucks going in to Gaza. (see ex. [7]). We may either compare changes in rocket attacks as reported by MFA to aid as reported by MFA, or compare changes in rocket attacks as reported by NYT to aid as reported by NYT, or both. We can’t just create a mishmash, harvesting rockets data from here and aid data from there, as THIS IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I can produce sources claiming much higher number of rockets fired. Why not using them? As it is presented by now, it is an original analysis of two different sources.
  • Second issue, the 98% "decrease" in rocket attack compares two periods chosen arbitrarily by an editor. 4.5 month before the lull, and the first 4.5 months of the lull. The last month and a half of the lull is ignored. By that we are really implying that there was no lull at that time (last month and a half), while this is at least officially wrong. What is really been done here is one editor judging which months of the lull should be included in the statistics, and which shouldn't. In other words, deciding when the lull "really" came to an end. I was wrong to compromise on the issue, but I won't withdraw my consent. So I won't ask to remove it. I will, however, ask it to be counterbalanced (my last point).
  • Third, we compare the rockets 4.5 months before the lull, and 4.5 months after the lull announced. However, aid expectations (truck loads) are compared not only before and after the lull began (increased from 70 to 90) but also before the blockade begun, when Hamas took power in Gaza and after the lull begun. It is very nice that Hamas expected that the truck load would reach 500-600 a day, as was the situation before it assumed power (according to NYT. Maybe we should check MFA?). But if so, why don't we compare rockets the same way? i.e. before Hamas took power, and after the lull. Here (as I calculated in one of our previous discussions), there is only 20% decrease in rockets fire. If we present truck loads from that time, we should also present rockets from that time. Isn't the (unreal) parallelism coming out nice? 20% decrease in rocket attacks, and about 30% increase in truck loads (from 70 to 90).
  • If we present Hamas as maintain the truce 98%, it should also be noted that IDF operations in Gaza dramatically decreased at that time. Israel also stated several times that lifting the blockade was not a part of the truce (I think I read someone saying it was, so if there is a good source saying it was, forget it).
  • If we choose to use the MFA data, we should also note the ~1,000% increase in rockets fire from October to November, months during which the lull was still in effect according to Israel (and the rest of the world), and DO SO WITHOUT NOTING THE EARLY NOVEMBER ATTACK as in the case of the rockets "decrease" (or we can do note the incident but re-calculate the rockets "decrease" taking into account the last month and a half).

- This is it for now, I'll be back with more issues (I have a lot) on this section.--Omrim (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim, I'm sorry, but Huh? V. Joe (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I am referring to this part of the article:

Nevertheless, rocket fire decreased 98% in the four and a half months between Jun 18 and Nov 4 in comparison with the four and half months preceding the ceasefire as over 1,894 rockets were fired into Israel from Feb to Jun 18, 2008 and 37 were fired between Jun 18 and the beginning of November.[92]

Israel allowed some increase in the quantities of goods trucked into Gaza, from 70 truckloads per day to ninety, but traffic was not restored to the 500-600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing and the mix of goods was also restricted.[83][93] --Omrim (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The MSNBC source you quote does not lay blame, as you suggest. Neither did our background section before you changed it. Our job here is to provide facts. Our job is not to worry about whom the reader will blame based on the facts presented. "Balance" does not mean censoring the article in order to have roughly the same number of factors supporting each side. That's playing god with the facts.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not really a critique. If you wish to add the lower MFA numbers and the NYT numbers that's fine.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, if you wish to add that after the Nov 4 Israeli raid into Gaza the rocket numbers increased based on your source that's fine. But don't remove the numbers for the earlier months.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC

That is an intriguing piece of work Omrim, and raises legitimate queries. It's late here, so I can't work on it now. To understand it, having glanced over a few links, will require an extensive and lengthy analysis of exactly what the document is saying (as opposed to what many sources I could cite actually state. It means Mary Robinson was just lying through her teeth, or covering for Hamas's maladministration, in early November when after touring Gaza she complained of the shocking poverty she saw everywhere). The category 'food, medicines, and materials for essential infrastructures' looks impressive at first sight, but rapid calculations about what is food and medicine, and what is meant by materials (oil tankers to supply fuel to 1,500,000 people are going to weigh in heavily in the accountancy). I hope our statistically minded confreres can spare some time if they are in an earlier timezone than myself, to reply in the meantime. By the way, some of the things you say are syntheses, can be resolved by relocating the distinct items of information to distinct parts of a sentence. But there is too much there for superficial comments. For the moment, good evening.Nishidani (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just an afterthought. This is not just 'humanitarian aid'. Israel froze the transfer of roughly $50 million a month in tax and customs receipts in mid 2006, to the PNA, after Hamas won the election in Gaza. My understanding is that none of that money, in part due to the administration in Gaza, was ever given over, which in turn deeply effected the local economy. Is this accountancy for all goods, reflecting trade, as Hamas asked for, or just things allowed through on humanitarian grounds? Nishidani (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I am not suggesting that the data currently in the article is wrong. Just that it is misrepresented (for ex, the 70 to 90 loads data doesn't seem far from the MFA data at first glance). But if we use the MFA for rockets, we should also use it for aid. And also, we should present "counter statistics", as I explaind above.--Omrim (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have something like "The ceasefire lapsed on December 19th 2008. Neither side wished to renew the truce due to perceived aggressions on the part of the other". I know that isn't Wikipedia-quality prose (hey it's almost half past midnight where I am) but I hope you see what I'm getting at. We should present what actually happened - both sides knew the ceasefire would end, and both wanted it to because they felt that the other side hadn't honoured the ceasefire anyway. Cynical (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is where I am aiming at, sort of. It is very easy to potray statistics, using the same data, to show the exact opposite. If you're an American, you may know the DirecTV commercial slogan: "90% of all statistics can be made to say anything… 50% of the time"...--Omrim (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight: Unlike Josh's implications, I didn't change nothing in the background regarding the above issues. I discuss first. And as for "our job is to provide facts" - I agree. However, I can't help the feeling that people are only providing the facts suitable for their point of view. Many editors here are not in search of facts, but in search for sources to support what ever "fact" they want to present. This is not the way things are supposed to be done here, and this is why I don't just add other (contradictory) data as you suggest I should. Taking your advice at face value, maybe I should just quote MSNBC as is. Would that be good editing? I don't think so. --Omrim (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IT IS original research to take one set of data from one source (MFA) and to compare it with another set of data from another source (NYT); But if so, why don't we compare rockets the same way? It seems to me that the valid response is simply to add all of the relevent data. Thus, we should have both points of view for the rockets issue and both points of view for the blockade issue. So, I support the idea of a counterbalance. The Squicks (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Omrim. I'm awake now, unlike last night. I'm afraid the MFA data is completely useless. It is dated 18 Jun 2008, then gives data it says covers the total amount of transported material from June 16, 2007 - Sept. 22, 2008, as 35,542 trucks; 813,870 tons. September 22, 2008 is well into the lull, three months, and yet all the figures provided refer only to the period of one full year before the lull agreement. There is no data for the 3 months of the lull period, in which Israel had undertaken to lift the previous virtual siege of the area which these figures try to controvert.

One of the conditions of the lull or truce agreement was that border crossings be opened to enable the free flow of goods. The link you provide gives the statistics for the pre-lull period. Statistics which ignore the blockade of the fishing industry (30,000 people out of work, and a major traditional source of food dismantled) and the suspension of tax refunds after Hamas won, though those refunds were of excise duty on border trade). According to sources like Gareth Porter, Hamas complained that the lull was breached from day one, in so far as Israel had from the beginning of the lull closed or reduced commercial traffic.

(a) 'The Hamas officials insisted that Israel not be allowed to close or reduce commercial traffic through border crossings for political purposes, as it had done during the six-month lull, according to the source.'
(b)'Israel's rejection of the Hamas December proposal reflected its preference for maintaining Israel's primary leverage over Hamas and the Palestinian population of Gaza -- its ability to choke off food and goods required for the viability of its economy -- even at the cost of continued Palestinian rocket attacks.
The ceasefire agreement that went into effect Jun. 19, 2008 required that Israel lift the virtual siege of Gaza which Israel had imposed after the June 2007 Hamas takeover. Although the terms of the agreement were not made public at the time, they were included in a report published this week by the International Crisis Group (ICG), which obtained a copy of the understanding last June.
In addition to a halt in all military actions by both sides, the agreement called on Israel to increase the level of goods entering Gaza by 30 percent over the pre-lull period within 72 hours and to open all border crossings and "allow the transfer of all goods that were banned and restricted to go into Gaza" within 13 days after the beginning of the ceasefire.
Nevertheless, Israeli officials freely acknowledged in interviews with ICG last June that they had no intention of opening the border crossings fully, even though they anticipated that this would be the source of serious conflict with Hamas.
The Israelis opened the access points only partially, and in late July Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni declared that the border crossings should remain closed until Hamas agreed to the release of Gilad Shalit, an IDF soldier abducted by Hamas in June 2006. The Hamas representative in Lebanon, Usam Hamdan, told the ICG in late December that the flow of goods and fuel into Gaza had been only 15 percent of its basic needs.
We need therefore detailed Israeli statistics, from an official source, for the flow of good into Gaza after the lull began before we can even begin to handle your points.
A final point. You write
(A) ‘The 70 to 90 increase in trucks load is taken from an NYT article. The very same article also states the number of rockets fired to Israel, which is significantly higher than the one used to make the 98% estimation. However, instead of using NYT, we are using another source (Israel MFA) for the rocket data. IT IS original research to take one set of data from one source (MFA) and to compare it with another set of data from another source (NYT).’
No. This is wrong. The NYT article is sourced for trucking during the period. The MFA is sourced for rocket data. There is no original research involved in citing a variety of sources for different aspects of an event. The fact that the NYT also mentions rockets, and differs in its estimation from the MFA source constitutes a conflict in sources re rockets. But from this to assume one must use one source for everything is mistaken. It is not original research to cite two sources for two different elements of a problem. It may be, but this is not clear, original research to deduce from the statistics that the lull's first 4 and a half months, i.e. the period for which rocket attacks were suspended by both parties and the military terms of the truce honoured by both parties, show a 98% drop. That after November 4, both parties started shooting at each other, since on that date the military pact was unilaterally broken by Israel, means that the last month and a half the 'lull' was, in military terms, suspended. You can include the statistics of fire from this final formal period into the model, but if the point is to make the actual period in which the military terms of the pact were fully observed seem less of a ceasefire than it was, this also would distort things.
Generally here there is a great danger of WP:OR either way. Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, again, I am not in favor of including the MFA, or the NYT, unless we include them as is, without analyzing them. I am not suggesting that Israel openned the crossings completly. It didn't probably, but it's not for us to analize statistically. The MFA source I pointed to is just an example. The bottom line goes to show that statistics are WP:OR. Stating a decrease in 98% is an analysis of facts, rather than stating the facts. No reliable source published such analysis, but we at Wiki - did. And analysis is specifically prohibited according to WP:OR. How about using this L Times article as THE primary source for the entire lull's background? [8]--Omrim (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have from the outset (I think I was the first to note it) suggested 98% is open to WP:OR challenges. You don't need to convince me on this that there is a legitimate problem there. I personally think this is all provisory work: I know of scholarly analyses now underway which will be peer-reviewed precisely on these questions, and available in some months. I prefer what scholars tell me, months afterwards, than what newspapers say in the heat of events. In the meantime we have our problem. But I think your objection to Thrylos's graph somewhat forced. Very many sources agree that June to November 4 marked an almost total shut-down of rocketing from Gaza. To insist on the whole lull period has an advantage, for the rockets at the end once added, make blur one's recognition of the demonstrated fact that, even if it is OR, between June and Nov.4, rocket attacks underwent a 95%+ reduction. Perhaps I am not a good wiki editor. But for an historian, who would do what Thrylos did, this point warrants mention, and clarity. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove this?

This sentence, located in the "Reactions" section is somewhat vague: "Elements in Indonesia are seeking to put together a coalition such as the one put together after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait." I looked into the two sources provided and the urls have been recylcled to other stories (but check them out if you want to learn about university entrance testing in Indonesia). So does anyone have anything on this or should it go? --JGGardiner (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please tag it with [citation needed], then if no improvement shows, discuss and remove. Gsmgm (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

section: rocket attacks

i don't think that this line is appropriate:

"Notable Qassam strikes included a direct hit on an apartment building in the center of Ashkelon[194], while Grad rockets struck the Makif Alef high school in Beersheba,[195] and a home in Ashkelon on January 12.[196]"

especially the term 'notable," synonyms of which are remarkable, distinguished, and prominent according to m-w.

we should leave out the "notable" part and just say "Qassam strikes included a direct hit on an apartment building in the center of Ashkelon[194], while Grad rockets struck the Makif Alef high school in Beersheba,[195] and a home in Ashkelon on January 12.[196]"

also, i just noticed that all three of these links are dead and need to be replaced. Untwirl (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

also, if people were injured in these attacks it should be stated. Untwirl (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "notable" is not necessary there. Rabend (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

specific incidents

i mentioned this earlier but only received one response:

these statements:
"It pointed Arab media reports that civilians had, back in 2006, taken shifts serving as "human shields" of the Barud residence.[444]
Hamas continues to hold Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to human rights group, B'Tselem holding Gilad Shalit hostage is a war crime, since "international humanitarian law" prohibits "hostage taking". B'Tselem also said that the denial of Red Cross visits to the prisoner was a "blatant violation of international law".[450]
are not relevant to this conflict. both of these sources refer to events happening two or three years ago. i propose they be removed. Untwirl (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I reccommend moving this information to the main page on the conflict rather than just deleting it. The Squicks (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
sounds fine to me - although they are probably already there. i'd rather let a more exp editor handle that. if anyone is game . . . Untwirl (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

does anyone else agree/disagree with removing these statements? Untwirl (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree ....and not just because abducted Palestinians are apparently inconsequential so it seems. It's not relevant as you say. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In principle, I don't see why waiting 24-48 hours for other user comments is so unusual. Why is it that the editing on this page goes so incredibly fast? What's wrong with waiting? The Squicks (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [Comment directed not at Untwirl specifically, but at all users here]
i brought it back up because it had been archived already. Untwirl (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be difficult but Shalit is very much a part of this conflict. In fact there was mention of him in the press as part of it. I will try to find it. Please check it out before you start deleting references to him. [9] Thanks Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

as it stands, ref#474 is a press release dated 2007 and the three sentences above are not related to this conflict. however, the news search you have linked (13 - "Gilad Shalit was injured in the bombing of the Gaza Strip") is definitely relevant and should be included.

the other sentence:

(Arab media reports that civilians had, back in 2006, taken shifts serving as "human shields" of the Barud residence.[444])

refers to events from 2006 which aren't part of this conflict, either. Untwirl (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

btw, do you agree with my comment above about removing the word 'notable'? it seems too respectable a term to apply to these actions. Untwirl (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if Gilad Shalit was wounded during the attacks, and is still denied access to the ICRC, this should be included. The paragraph should be reworded, though.

As for the thing about taking shifts, the reason I put that in there is because the Israeli allegations cannot be confirmed or denied by any non-Israeli media or organizations. So this historic precedent is valuable in granting credibility to the source. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

2007-2008 Airstrikes

It struck me that there was no mention of the IDF's responses to Hamas' rockets and activities in 2007-2008, in the short backgrounder, so I've added:

Israel conducted airstrikes on Gaza during 2007 and 2008, against Hamas and other targets.

No mention of casualty numbers, no mention of civilian deaths, or of other issues - it's a rather simple statement, as the main articles cover these incidents in greater detail. It might need tweaking, however... Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

this is fine to me, although it needs to be sourced. Untwirl (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest Lede revision

It is quite different from what we have had before, which is unacceptable to so many of us for differing reasons. This latest version is oriented to a more linear/chronological view of the situation, and what led to it. It uses the Gaza Massacre, but it gives the Israeli perspective on it as well. Maybe not perfect, but well sourced and correct and neutral. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre, as has already been discussed, is not a perspective or an accusation or anything of the sort, it is a name. The names used do not need to balance each other, that is not what NPOV means. NPOV means that both names are used. If you plan on having the lead include information about any rocket attacks, it will also have information on the siege of gaza, the targeted assassinations that were in violation of the truce and many many more accusations. That is not the purpose of the first paragraph. BOLD does not excuse ignoring consensus. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And please do not change the lead without consensus. Nableezy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Total Wounded

A few problems with the box. Firstly it doesn't list men - why are only children and women listed there? we're in the 21st century - women don't get special treatment. Also why don't we have those numbers for the Israeli side? It seems a grab for sympathy. "****Among the wounded there were 1,549 children and 652 women." -- (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It lists it like that because we have no sources for 'total civilians' we only have information on 'women and children'. If we have sources that actually do make a civilian count, I am all for replacing the women and children, but as it is no such statistics are available. Nableezy (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I second that. There's no bias here. We can only report what the sources say. If sources gave us different types of statistics, we could use those different ones. The Squicks (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no sympathy, it's the fact there's no reported women or children killed on the Israeli side(for good). If you have references mentioning the opposite, bring them. Otherwise it's not called sympathy, it's called facts reported by the UN. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about killed - I'm talking about wounded. And yes there have been children and women wounded in the Israeli side. The problem is that the * is not needed unless you want to indicate that the numbers include JUST women and children. If that is the intended goal the sentence needs to be clarified to indicate that those numbers are just women and children and that men were not included.

I don't know how reliable this website is but I wanted an English report so people will be able to read it and not just a Hebrew one (which are reported in reliable news websites - I'll try to see if those websites have an English version - some do).
If the sentence "****Among the wounded there were 1,549 children and 652 women." will stay like this it will look like favoritism. Is elaborating on the number needed? if so why isn't it done for the Israeli wounded as well, and why men aren't listed? you say you don't have numbers for the men but if you add the number of children and women it doesn't result in 4418 wounded which means the rest must be men. -- (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source from a newspaper's website: Yedioth Ahronoth:,7340,L-3651267,00.html in English. -- (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We need some totals for the number of wounded Israeli children, women, men, elderly etc.. Articles in Hebrew will work too, though English would be better for English Wikipedia. Physically wounded, not just psychologically wounded. That is much harder to measure. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still searching for a current and reliable source, but I still don't see the reason to specify how many were children and women. Why is it needed? Thanks. I saw someone wrote that it doesn't say in the source how many of the 4,418 are civilians so I guess it's to show an estimation (by adding the number of children and women together and leaving the rest unknown) - tell me if I'm wrong. -- (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The lull

Okay, so there's two sections. One about the security situation and another about the economic situation. The former seems balanced and informative enough to me. The latter is way too small and not properly referenced. Does anyone have any further thoughts about what to add? Also, can we a source for the allegation that most of the rockets were done by unknown perpetrators? The Squicks (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Following the election of Hamas in 2006 and the Battle of Gaza (2007), Hamas took over the Gaza strip by force from Fatah, summarily executing many civilian members of Fatah left in Gaza. needs a source as well. The Squicks (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It is clear from 2007 Battle of Gaza and from Fatah response to it. But maybe wording could be more balanced. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

External links

..appear to have been taken over by baby eating evil do-ers who want to enslave the free world. Or rather it doesn't seem as balanced as before. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, I pointed out long ago that this section is the backwater of the article, but now it's just ridiculous. Somebody should do something, and by "somebody" I mean "not me". Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


The Infobox currently lists the total number of "militants" killed as 550 and sources it to the IDF. There was some discussion about this previously. My concern (which was articulated by others in previous discussions) is that militants, as defined by the IDF, includes policemen and almost anyone working for Hamas. This has been questioned by many reliable sources. See here or here. To summarize, the clubbing of everyone who works for Hamas, including fighters, policemen and others into "militants" is IDF terminology that has been questioned. Hence, from the point of view of neutrality, the article should not use this phraseology. We need to come up with a better phrase or drop this category altogether. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We just have to stick to IDF and Palestinian sources as updated, giving both versions. 'Militants' is a standard wiki term. By way of background, it might be worth mentioning that in international law, police forces are recognized as members of the military, and legitimate targets only if an act of notification had taken place between the two states who enter into a conflict, as far as my understanding of it goes. Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps figures from multiple sources could be given, like "Militants: 500 (IDF), 80 (___)" replacing "___" with some other source (I'm pulling these numbers out of nowhere for illustrative purposes, so don't rely on them). Or perhaps a range of estimates could be given, attributed to several sources. ←Michael Safyan (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems the IDF is using the phrase "Hamas operatives". See [10]. So I changed the wording to use that phrase in quotes in the infobox. This way the reader sees that it is not the narrative voice of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV does not like the narrative voice being used to validate stuff like that. The reader can decide the validity of all the claims. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualty and losses data

Could a few of you keep an eye on the Israeli area to update it regularly? I note that the lead has 14 casualties, but the box still retains the 13 figure, which should be correct by +1. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the infobox. I have seen no reports saying there are now 14 Israeli dead. Has the total gone up in the last day?
Also, it seems that anonymous IPs are editing the article. So it is no longer semi-protected. It needs to be, in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Could an administrator see to it that anonymous IPs are excluded from the editing, and semi-protect it please. I'll check that 14 figure.Nishidani (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
These figures are always going to be imperfect and the best we can do is list what various entities say about them. Hamas casualties especially are very hard to calculate because the movement does not report the number of its dead and has its own medical facilities, meaning that the figures which come out of the (Hamas-controlled) Palestinian Ministry of Health are inaccurate. In addition, Hamas operatives often dress as civilians which means that any which do end up in Ministry of Health medical facilities may be misreported as noncombatants. -- Noung (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with this text (under Casualties), but not sure how to go about improving it either:

"According to Palestinian Ministry of Health and UN figures as of 12 January, 925 Palestinians have been killed and 3,860 have been injured.[28] Of those at least 485 have been confirmed as civilians in the following breakdown: 4 UN[212] and 13 medical workers,[28][213] 4 journalists,[27] 292 children,[214] 75 women, and 97 elderly people.[28] Of the 4,250 injuries: 1,497 are children 626 are women and 30 are medical workers.[28][215] Among the civilians killed in the Gaza Strip were also two foreigners, a Ukrainian woman and her child.[216]The number of children fatalities is said to have increased by 250% since the beginning of the ground operation on 3 January.[217]"

First, the source cites 292 children and 75 women, but are they automatically civilians? The source doesn't claim they are, AFAICS. Alos, I have a hard time understanding what the 250% figure is supposed to mean. What was the rate before/after? How much do specific incidents, like the UN school impact the numbers? I'd rather drop that sentence, since it's close to free of content. kzm (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter can be phrased to be more informative, by checking the date of the ref and assigning the increase a time period.
I don't have a comment about the other issue.
By the way, for those who wondered about differences in the child casualty stats, in this article, Doctors call for halt to Gaza assault, it explains that the Ministry of Health in Gaza defines children as 18 years old and under, while the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah defines them as 17 and under. Tiamuttalk 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamas selling food aid to highest bidder

Yesterday, on National Public Radio (USA), there was a story concerning Hamas gunman appropriating food aid and selling it to "highest bidder." Was this (or anything like it) reported elsewhere? Mkpumphrey (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The story is on ynet also ([11]) and should be included if other sources say so, too. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ynetnews. Rabend (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
JPost. Rabend (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This is kind of a second-term WP:RS: [12]. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem including this information as long as it is clearly attributed to the sources. For example, "Ynet reports" or "Israeli media reports" or "IDF sources report". Tiamuttalk 14:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How about "the UN reports" (archive). Johan Eriksson, UNRWA spokesman, acknowledges in an interview that, "We are aware of instances where deliveries of humanitarian aid into Gaza have been diverted by the local government." Now there's your smoking gun. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, attribute it to the sources and I have no problem with it. I suggest you use the UN source, since it is the most reliable of those listed here, and it might be good to quote Eriksson in full, due to the seriousness of the accusation. Tiamuttalk 15:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I changed the quotation just a little. Instead of saying "local government," I said "Hamas." They're the same thing. If you find that highly objectionable, feel free to change it, and we can discuss. I just think the latter is clearer than the former. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

KILL'EM ALL —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your concern for human life is really very touching. Tiamuttalk 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay I'm a pro-Palestinian editor. I am at the same time, an inveterate disbeliever in anything the press gives me, esp. during wars, unless it is extremely well-sourced, cross-verified, and hails from journos with a strong record for checking and probity. We are in the fog of war, and war is waged in the media (as the JP article notes, there is a media battle). These two articles are odd. For three weeks we have footage of gunman getting into the streets, their position immediately GPSed to the military which shoots them within 2 minutes. We have numerous news reports saying no Hamas militant or operative can expose himself without being shot at within minutes, given the reticular surveillance over the whole area. The two articles tell us that at a border crossing, not in the built up civilian-thronged urban centres, under Israeli border control, Kerem Shalom, a whole convoy of trucks was fired on and then, right under or before the eyes of the IDF, 'seized' by Hamas 'gunmen'. We are told that it then managed to steal the (whole) contents of 100 aid trucks in Gaza, and sold the lot to the highest bidders. I.e. an extraordinarily complex military operation of firing, seizing, offloading and selling the contents of one or two convoys of trucks, numberinhg 100, and the IDF, well, it held fire, didn't get any shots off at the militants, and just notified the press.
The UN source is dated 7 January (Wednesday, after the first hijack). All we get there is a remark:-

We are aware of instances where deliveries of humanitarian aid into Gaza have been diverted by the local government. We have every time protested to the local authorities because of this. UNRWA's deliveries into Gaza have, however, never been touched.

We've all seen our US war movies, and read King Rat or Catch 22. We all know that regular armies always have entrepreneurs within the ranks who trade, do deals, swipe and trade army goods, often with the connivance of men higher up. We know that rogue elements in the IDF have been reported with great regularity in the past for sacking Palestinian houses suspected of 'harbouring terrorists', emptying them of money, jewellery and goods (no reports of this so far in this campaign). We know that guerillas requisition stocks. We know of black markets. I add this last soapy part in reaction to the Ynet piece which sounds so wall-eyed in its innuendoes, and so self-congratulatory in its capacity to identity an organisation with highway robbers sucking the lifeblood out of its people, that one should have only a very good, reliable, and comprehensive piece on this 'incident' before securing it into the body of the text. Ynet and JP give us leads to follow up, but we need something done by journalists of quality, and from sources that are relatively free of the taint of possible manipulation of news in real time under conditions of war. Be very careful of this and everything else we source, gentlemen.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This sentence seems problematic According to the Israeli media, Hamas has been raiding and looting trucks carrying humanitarian aid sent by Israel and international organizations in the sense that it says 'sent by Israel' quoting the source and yet there is no entry for Israel here. Nor does Israel appear in the list of countries supplying aid in the Humanitarian aid section. Is anyone in a position to clarify/rectify that apparent contradiction ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A very large number of reports on humanitarian aid in have confused 'which Israel has allowed to pass in' with'which Israel sent in'. On television for two weeks, I have only seen one reference to who is sending aid, and it referred to a Jordanian convoy.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes and that kind of language is repeatedly appearing in this article. If the Israel gov. are providing aid from the Israeli people it's very notable and should be treated as such in my view. It needs to be clarified and editors obviously need to be careful about their language. Are any (pro)Israeli editors willing to work on this to demonstrate the kindness of the Israeli gov. towards Gaza.... ? If not I would suggest we remove that part of the statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reservists Forces/Reserve Forces

I grant that it is a rather minor edit, but I've learned in dealing with this massive talk page, it is far better to ask for consensus after all but the most minor edits. Please let me know if anyone has trouble with my "fix" of what I thought was a grammatical error. V. Joe (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of belligerents

I don't think that a single report that some members of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and other militias have volunteered to fight for Hamas in Gaza is enough to justify the organisations of which they are members being included in the list of belligerents. Some of these militias are based in the West Bank and couldn't join in the fighting in Gaza even if they wanted to. (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of factions involved is discussed in this archive. I was waiting for people to respond before adding more info. Tiamuttalk 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Humanitarian Ceasefire

It says: In response, Israel announced daily three-hour "humanitarian ceasefires", which neither party has respected.[94][95] I looked at both sources provided, neither of them state that Israel ignored the 3 hour ceasfires, it only says that Hamas continued to fire rockets into Israel during it. Most of my sources state that Hamas has ignored the ceasefire and Israel is only attacking if it is responding to Hamas' fire. Let me know if any of you can fine info stating that Israel has ignored the ceasefire when it isn't responding to Hamas' fire. Also, let me know if you can see any indication of Israel attacking in Gaza during ceasefire in the sources provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by איתמר בועז (talkcontribs) 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's also exactly what I heard and read. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

infobox photos

Chandler, there is plenty of room for two pics, and now that they aren't side by side there shouldn't be an issue with image size. It is my view that failing to show the area within Israel that is involved in this conflict doesn't represent a NPOV. Your thoughts? Kaisershatner (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the photo is vandalism

The photo was removed again [13]. The removal of this photo will be treated as vandalism because there is no reason for it be removed. What happens when someone vandalizes? We revert the edit immediately, we don't keep adding to the article until no one knows who did the vandalism and when it occurred. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think all editors here can agree that removal without explanation is vandalism. The Squicks (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Looks like the picture was removed again by another anonymous editor [14]. I'll restore it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following the history of this issue. But those just look like bad edits to me. Where's the vandalism? Vandalism doesn't occur every time someone makes a bad edit. Vandalism occurs when someone makes an edit in an attempt to harm Wikipedia. Normally I don't care when terms are thrown around loosely but I see that threats (of blocks) have been left on the talk pages and that's not cool. Unless you know something about those particular users that wasn't said above. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you could make an argument that someone could try to "improve" the article by removing the image. However, without an edit summary, in light of the decision above that the image should be included, such edits do take on a certain bad faith light. I left the warnings on those pages and I hope I wasn't too overzealous. I invited them both to discuss the issue here and didn't specifically accuse them of vandalism. I didn't think I threatened. Repeated vandalism results in blocks. It wasn't meant as a threat, but as a warning of the reality that all wikipedia editors live with that new users should be made aware of. The image is being removed repeatedly without an edit summary, harming the integrity of the page. My understanding of WP:VANDAL is that that in fact could be interpreted as vandalism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I hope I didn't sound too harsh up there. Maybe I was. I agree that the edits were wrong. And I agree that it could be vandalism but it could also just be a new user removing a photo that they think doesn't belong. Wikipedia is intimidating enough for new users. We have to understand that they won't be aware of the policies. I made my first edits without checking to see if they violated the consensus on the talk page or even knowing that there was a consensus policy. Indeed, I didn't know any of the specific WP policies. I think not "biting" means that we have to give them the benefit of the doubt even before they have earned it like we have.
I just think that if we don't know that this is most likely vandalism and it is coming from unregistered new users then the best thing to do is just tell them politely that they made a mistake, direct them to the policy and the talk page if they want to contribute. At least that's how I like doing things.
But if the same user is removing the image repeatedly, then maybe it is vandalism. I thought that might have been the case, even though it wasn't specifically said. That's why I meant about "knowing something" above.
Now if only we could figure out a way to get the rest of the users here interested consensus. Hmm.... --JGGardiner (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You make an extremely good point. I don't "know something" as you put it. I just see a real potential for this image to be removed repeatedly (by real vandals who don't have good intentions) and then forgotten. I do think we should continue to assume good faith, so I think it should only be considered a confirmed instance of vandalism if the same user makes repeated removals.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why photographic evidence of facts is to be excluded. NPOV doesn't require us to hide facts, it requires us to display them in a neutral fashion. If there is any credible, well sourced reports questioning the photographs as displaying facts, then we must report that (and have done so in the past) but asking for removing content for NPOV reasons is a highly, HIGHLY, unusual reading of Wikipedia practice, as I have come to understood it through the years. If there is any further controversy around this, it will be taken to ArbCom as a violation of WP:POINT. This is about disrupting the prsentation of facts, the sole goal of wikipedia, by alleging that it somehow it violates neutrality. I have never heard that position be successfuly used in any article. The photos, if not copy-vios, are valuable content that illustrate the facts, actually, even just to illustrate for encyclopedic purposes. Only thing is to be on the look out to use photos of this conflict, not shooped or stage, and to make sure the licensing is good. --Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Israelis directly targetting Gazan medics tending to the injured

I have posted a section with this name before, but this time I have more details. Electronic Intifada is accusing Israelis of targeting medics [15] and has video evidence for it. [16] I am thinking about amending the article with the information, but before I do, is there any suggestions, objections, thoughts? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could find other sources confirming this, then maybe such a section should be included. However, I'm skeptical about the reliability of the two references provided right now. So, at this point, I don't think this information should be added. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Rabend (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the sources are fine. I added a section earlier describing Israeli attacks on medical services and clinics. I see that this section has now been deleted. It looks like somebody wants to keep this news buried. NonZionist (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think these sources are not fine. Electronic Intifada and PalSolidarity don't sound much neutral. When I quote sources supporting "pro-Israeli" events, I ignore all the clearly pro-Israeli sites out there. Rabend (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
@##^# @!##%^# IT! Could someone already ban that NonZionist troll/spammer/hater/provocateur/etc.?! Anyhow, these sources are NOT fine. "Electronic Intifada" and "Palestinian Solidarity" is as reliable as a website that would be called "Hamas online" or on the contrary, "Kill all Palestinians and make Israel the rulers of the Universe". Seriously, I'm sorry for the language but this NonZionist is constantly bullshitting and spreading his propaganda in any posibility. He has NO reliabilty whatsoever. And about the video on the 2nd link, you don't see anything there at all. No proof of anyone being injured, no visible source of fire nor anything. You hear loud bangs (persumably gunshots), and camera is jiggling. I don't want to say "Pallywood" because there is nothing in that video that can prove of disprove it, but seriosuly - I can take any random video and claim it to be something else. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as you are entitled to express your opinion, Boris A., I am entitled to express mine. Along with others here, I try to speak in behalf of the victims -- people who do not have access to the big media. I do believe that EI is accurate, and I will continue to believe this till I see evidence to the contrary. If I am outvoted, that's fine: That's the way democracy works. There is no need to suppress my contribution in advance. NonZionist (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Quit with the demagogy. Every single edit and comment you make is an attempt to demonize Israel (and their friends, like the US), and show how innocent Hamas are. Even your nickname itself is based on hatred or anti-something. It's people like you, who are fueled by hatred instead of attempt of compromise, are the reason for this crisis in the middle-east. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, any one who helps the Palestinians or has a pro-Palestinian viewpoint is a propagandist for Hamas. Your logic is sh*t --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
How exactly did you conclude that my objection to the spirit of NonZionist's comments means that "any one who helps the Palestinians or has a pro-Palestinian viewpoint is a propagandist for Hamas"? What you said makes no sense. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 09:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources attesting to the targeting of medical facilities and workers are available in the section above. Some of that information is already in the article in a subsection under Health. NonZionist, it was moved to that subsection by someone else. Some of the information you added seems to be missing now. I'm trying to look at the diffs, but with all the sly removals of information between edits by people trying to add things, it's hard to find where and when the changes were made. Tiamuttalk 14:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiamut. I found it. I added the section because I saw a number of people in favor of it -- a partial consensus -- and I saw others editing the article with no consensus at all. Consensus does not mean unanimity. If we waited for unanimity, nothing would ever get published. Of course, I do not object to people editing my text, and softening it to some extent. I want to be reasonable.
I agree that it has become very hard to keep track of the edits. I've suggested that we need more advanced history and diff tools. See Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict/Archive_14#Need_for_a_better_diff.2Fhistory_tool NonZionist (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just great how you're trying to spread hatred instead of understanding and cooperation. All that looking for all kinds of small pieces of "evidence" to prove some preconceived bias that you're dealing with blood-thirsty murderers who just want to kill your children. And medics, apparently. The world is more complex than "i'm always right, you're always wrong". These kinda things are what makes a medium-left-winger like me move more and more to the right, feeling like there's actually no one to talk to on the other side. I truly don't see how we're over gonna come out of this alive.
I'm sorry for this personal soaping, but this is just depressing me. Rabend (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's the facts that are depressing:

There are depressing facts on either side, and I'm not gonna start posting all the attacks aimed at Israeli hospitals, or how suicide bombers sometimes have 2 devices so the 2nd one will kill the medics attending to the wounded by the 1st, or the Hamas use of hospitals for military command centers, or their dressing as doctors or using ambulances to transport weapons. It never ends. There are so many pieces of "evidence" to support the claims parallel to the one your'e making, but my instinct is not to post whatever I can to show the world how I'm a victim of these merciless Palestinians. There are 2 sides with victims here. Incessantly blaming and hating won't get us far. But maybe it's just me. Rabend (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes there are two sides and both have their victims. One side has over 1,000 dead and 4,500 wounded, while the other has 14 dead and hundreds of wounded. One side has F-16s, battleships, helicopters and tanks and the latest weaponry of all sorts, while the other has homemade rockets, rifles, some explosives and RPGs. I could go on ... but given WP:SOAP, all I will say is that we cannot ignore the assymetries is the name of WP:NPOV. that's not what its designed for. Tiamuttalk 22:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The article, unfortunately, is narrowly focused on incident and ethnicity: We use ethnicity to categorize the belligerents and leave the underlying spiritual or ideological conflict unmentioned. For example, there is no mention of Palestinian values, and no mention of long-term Israeli aims. There is no sympathy allowed.
If, instead, we were to categorize the belligerents according to behavior and philosophy, things would seem far more tractable and far less depressing. We would see one side locked into a regressive ideology of war and ethnic supremacy, and the other side seeking peace and equal treatment. We would then be free to stand wholeheartedly and unambiguously with the latter side. All of our NPOV squabbling would end: There's no need to balance "2+2=4" with "2+2=5".
To substantiate this new focus on the underlying spiritual conflict, we would have to enlarge our definition of RS to include, for example, Ari Folman's "Waltz With Bashir" and Stephen Spielberg's "Munich" and commentaries in general. We would need an encyclopedia that allows us to look at more than just the surface events. Attacking the underlying cause is not "spreading hate": It's spreading progress.

Folman's film is not political. It does not preach or pass judgment. Yet in its artistic integrity, it unintentionally reveals the grim parallels between Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its complicity with the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and its current onslaught -- parallels that, if Israel and the U.S. heeded them, would lead them to understand that the Gaza campaign is both morally appalling and politically self-destructive.
-- Gary Kamiya (2009-01-13). "What "Waltz With Bashir" can teach us about Gaza". Retrieved 2009-01-14. 

NonZionist (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I could argue in your own language, but others do it better- [17] now ask yourself - is this kind of one-sided biased and highly inflammatory rhetoric helpful in any way? you are merely pushing an agenda. It could be shown that Palestinians are self made professional victims, but that is highly argumentative and not in the least helpful. Should you wish to sink to POV war, I have plenty of ammo, of the same nature you derive your arguments from. With all due respect - many of the sources you provide are highly biased and thus unreliable. Please accept that what you perceive as truth is not necessarily hard fact, and try to contain yourself to improving the current article with a more NPOV approach. Here's another take on the nature of the conflict, from the same source: [18] -- (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NonZionist, I must say that I'm quite surprised to see you referring to Palestinians as "one side locked into a regressive ideology of war and ethnic supremacy" and to Israelis as "seeking peace and equal treatment". Rabend (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabend - I'm not so sure he does mean it like that. Actually, I would be surprised out of my mind if he meant it like that. Someone calling himself "Nonzionist" would be very unlikely to. However, he does have something of a point in saying that a narrow description of an ongoing event tends to lean one way rather than the other. Still, descriptions and choices of words can balance that... not that I see it happening here.Gin-genie (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ban on foreign journalists in Gaza

It is worth mentioning there is no free/foreign press in Gaza since Israel withdrawal in 2005. There were number of cases of foreign journalist kidnappings by Hamas before it took full control on Gaza. So foreign journalists left. I'm not really sure that this section should concentrate on Israel. Journalists can enter Gaza using Egypt controlled Rafah crossing AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please support your editorials by at least a gesture towards sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The most notable is Kidnapping of Alan Johnston, but oops it's claimed to be not by Hamas. I'll google for foreign press response and leaving. I hope existence of Rafah crossing is not disputed.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This[19] suggests that they can't enter via Rafah. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This also states: "There should be someone on the ground to reflect reality," said Al-Jazeera television cameraman Ashraf Ibrahim Mohammed, one of the reporters in the delegation. So is there Ban on foreign journalists in Gaza at all? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Palestinian security department has urged westerners, especially Europeans and Americans, to leave the Gaza Strip as the condition of an abducted AFP journalist remains unknown. [[20]] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
""The Foreign Press Association recently issued a statement saying Gaza had become a "no-go zone" for its several hundred members."" [[21]] AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One is obliged not only to assume good faith, but act in good faith, which means not being underhand in the presentation of evidence or tendentious. The evidence you provide is from April 2007. That is not recent. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
For Gaza journalists, kidnap is no longer the biggest fear [[22]] Here violence (killings) against journalists fully credited to Hamas This explains how come now there is no foreign press ( except for Al-Jazeera ) in Gaza during this conflict. Please assume good faith on my side AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One is obliged not only to assume good faith, but act in good faith, which means not being underhand in the presentation of evidence or tendentious. The evidence you provide is from April 2007. That is not recent. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
So you say it is not relevant to question why there is no free/foreign press in Gaza after Israel withdrawal in 2005 and during this operation/war ? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is you refer to "recently" it was just a quote - foreign press reactions for kidnappings, sorry did not mean to confuse anyone. Please assume good faith on my side 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay. 'People (abroad) are seeing images from Gaza of a sort that were not broadcast in previous wars, such as Kosovo or Afghanistan. Incidentally, these pictures are hardly being broadcast at all in the Israeli media.' Barak Ravid, 'Diplomats: Gaza op causing long-term harm to Israel's image,' 14/01/2009. As I said before, one reporter of channel 2 was hit with a petition signed by 32,000 cvalling for her dismissal for failing to control a wince as one of the few images of the carnage from inside Gaza was shown. Journalists have had a variety of problems in Gaza before and now. Hamas kicked out Amira Hass in December after a mere week there. But the point is, if Hamas is stopping journalists from entering, why the necessity by the IDF to disobey the Supreme Court ruling when journalists are clamouring to get inside the Strip? Since Hamas, in the tale, is opposed to journalists entering, why should the IDF trouble itself to do what Hamas is apparently doing? Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This info is relevant, since apparently the lack of reporters in Gaza in not only due the policies by which Israel decided to conduct the war, but also due to the danger they've been in since Hamas took over the place. We are obligated to describe the entire picture, and not only selective parts of it. Rabend (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, the evidence was that April 2007 many journalists left after two kidnappings. It was posted to counter the fact that the IDF refuses to implement the Supreme Court decision which allowed journalists, who desire to get inside the strip, a right to go there. The entire picture is to be described, certainly, but the kidnappings are not known to be conducted by Hamas. As far as I know, Hamas considered Amira Hass, a persona non grata. And she had to leave in early December after a week's sojourn there. .Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added "Most foreign journalists left the Gaza strip due to the the Hamas take-over.[14][15][16]" to the background section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Skäpperöd. Still the section in the subject still looks one sided to me. Adding "and Egypt" to reflect fact of existance of Rafah crossing somehow does make situation on the ground more clear. Could we reflect facts brought in this discussion, like Hamas attitude to free press into Media Coverage section? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've adjusted this, even if it is still in the wrong section, and will be eventually removed from there. The first link referred to journalists trying to enter Gaza now, and being blocked. The other two, which I've left in, refer to a specific period, April 2007, when many journalists left out of worries about their security, not, as it was phrased, because Hamas had taken over (it took over a year earlier than that).Nishidani (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool thank you, Nishidani, make it more balanced. Although I'm not sure it was literally "two kidnappings", it were more cases. You could say that it happened after Israel stopped providing security as a result of withdrawal from Gaza strip, though it did not happened immediately after; it was a process which took some time. As I see it was serial kidnapping concentrated on journalists with intention to expel foreign press out of Gaza strip. Till free/foreign press said we feel persona non grata after most notable Kidnapping of Alan Johnston case. So free/foreign/independent press left. Currently "Media coverage" gives an impression that free press flourished in Gaza prior to Israeli military operation under Hamas rule, but now we have to blame Israel for lack of independent sources in Gaza strip. So how about to reflect relationship between free press and Gaza self government inside "Media coverage"? Thank you for your thoughts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The Johnston kidnapping had nothing to do with Hamas, and was resolved by Hamas. Hamas does not have total control over such an intensely populated urban area with powerful clan social structures. Indeed there's evidence that it preferred some distinguished journalists not to be around (persona non grata) because it could in no way guarantee their security, and anything that might have happened to them would have been blamed on Hamas, whose foreign image was already in trouble. There is a huge desire to jam this page with every possible angle of news that might tilt it one way or another. 'Ah, this'd cast'em in a bad light' . I would remind all that this article is bloated and will be whittled down drastically when committed long term editors take a look at it, and begin a review to bring it back to standards of succinct, balanced and comprehensive quality, excluding all the futile material being thrown at the article. Stuff like this will stand up a day or two, and then be chucked out. If you are committed to it, there are many things to do. Many sources are useless (China Press releases for info any newspaper has), reduplicated, or say nothing we cannot get from main sources. The narrative is of a war. It is not a sociology of Hamas, its ideology, or whether like other highly deeveloped states with access to the best paper mills of Norway, and sophisticated printing presses that are bomb-secure, Hamas supports na 'free press'. This is not to be a 'black book' job on their world or background. People who feel passionate about this can go to the Hamas and associated pages. What doesn't strictly adhere to a thematically important structure for the war, or to the details of what actually occurred leading up to, during and after the war will be cut. So, let's not waste time on illusions.Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A thought and a note. Thought: If Hamas is to blame for the media not being in Gaza, wouldn't it ake sense that the media could come in now tha they are apparently not in power over Gaza? Note: I have exerpts a report from the AFP, 9 Jan about the Israeli ban on foreign media in Gaza.

Reporters Without Borders: "In view of the scale of the military operations and the repercussion they are having throughout the world, we believe the Israeli government's decision to exclude the press from the Gaza Strip is untenable and dangerous." ... Signatories included Germany's Der Spiegel, El Mundo and El Pais in Spain, US networks ABC, CBS and CNN, France's Le Figaro newspaper and RTL radio, Britain's Sky News and Guardian newspaper, and pan-Arab channel Al-Jazeera. Israel's Supreme Court ordered the government last week to allow foreign reporters into the Gaza Strip... But Israel...has so far maintained its ban on journalists despite the ruling. ["World media urge Israel to let press into Gaza," AFP, 09 Jan 2009, at] PinkWorld (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Pink

And of course we have the 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping in 2006 by those pesky Holy Jihad Brigades. Thank heavens for Hamas or they would never have been released, eh? But of course! Fox News was recently deleted as a reference by someone here in favor of the Electronic Intifada. sigh Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Stop soapboxing. Nableezy (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. please do not assume soapbox or "cast'em in a bad ligh". I think it clarifies how foreign press situation in Gaza during this conflict developed. Here is my try to leave the blout out. I suggest at add following wording as a first sub-section of Media Coverage: Title: Foreign press in Gaza. Text: Following Israel withdrawal there were number of cases of violence targeted at foreign journalists claimed by non notable groups sometimes linked to Al Qaeda. The most notable case is Kidnapping of Alan Johnston. Hamas is known to help negation and release. Subsequently Foreign Press Association issued a statement saying Gaza had become a "no-go zone". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a more comprehensive survey of the issue would take note of the following report, which states an Israeli rocket tried to take out a Palestinian television centre an hour ago, as well as intimidating foreifgn journalists on the floors above and below it.

Reuters journalists working at the time said it appeared the southern side of the 13th floor of the Al-Shurouq Tower in the city centre had been struck by an Israeli missile or shell. Reuters evacuated the bureau. Colleagues said at least one journalist working for Abu Dhabi television on the 14th floor was injured. The 13th floor houses a local television production company. The Reuters bureau is on the 12th floor.

Gideon Levy complained on 'Linea Notte' (Italy. Rai3 tg3. 12.44 am) that the Israeli gfovernment stopped him from reporting from Gaza Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Earlier, this article contained graphs of the monthly fatalities in Israel/Palestine and monthly rocket fire. Both of these graphs are informative and do a fairly good job in giving the reader background and also information on how well the truce was kept (or not kept). I've re-inserted both graphs. Jacob2718 (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who removed them ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't remove them they they shouldn't go in until this conflict is over and we have hard figures after the fog of war lifts. That said, if you are going to use them, at leas thave the decency of putting a caption with the sources so that we can verify. Doing "AFP, UN, IDF" doesn't cut it, we need the actual sources for V.--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Israel banned from Davis Cup (Sweden)

[17] A prominent member of Sweden's largest political party likened Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany in calling for a boycott of Sweden’s upcoming Davis Cup tennis match against the Middle Eastern country.

“Israel is an apartheid state. I think Gaza is comparable to the Warsaw ghetto,” said Ingalill Bjartén, the vice chair for the Social Democratic women’s organization (S-kvinnor) in Skåne in southern Sweden, to the Sydsvenskan newspaper.

“I’m surprised that Israel – where large numbers of the population suffered under the Nazis – can do the exact same things the Nazis did.”

The comments come as Bjartén and her counterparts from the Left Party have both called on Sweden to skip an upcoming Davis Cup tennis match against Israel, currently scheduled to take place in Malmö in early March.

“If the match in Malmö goes ahead, I can guarantee that I’ll be there to demonstrate just as I would have in Båstad in 1968 and 1975 if I'd been alive then," Left Party foreign policy spokesperson and Riksdag member Hans Linde, who was born in 1979, told the paper,

“I’ve been to the West Bank and I don’t think Israel is a democracy worthy of the name. It’s a racist apartheid state,” said Linde, adding that his party wants to see an “athletic and cultural boycott of Israel”.

Note: Why it was deleted ?

--Citizen Times Publication Sweden (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just heard Irit Linur on radio recalling genocide of Jews on Europe soil ( 6 millions killed ) during World War II. She claimed that it is somehow related to European reactions on this conflict. She called for air raids on European targets. "It least let's give them the reason to hate us". This is joke naturally. 10:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talkcontribs)
I don't think we need to include every statement from every left-wing politician on the globe, particularly as they might be out of context. Rabend (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I go with Rabend, though I'd replace "left-wing" with "non-notable with regard to the issue". Skäpperöd (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right. My bad. Rabend (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree. There are always many both anti-Israeli and pro-Israeli statements. In times like now, the anti-Israeli sounds louder than it really is, but there's no reason to make it more notable than it should be. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course we shouldn't be soapboxing, but I disagree... I haven't seen a single statement critical of Israel by a single elected official in the USA to date. None. The news is filled with pro-Israeli interviews, arguments justifications etc. In fact some debate programs have two pro-Israel debaters, one who is "hard line" the other more "soft", going at it, with no voice for the pro-Palestinian camp. Maybe in Europe its different, but pretty much the only criticism for Israel I have seen was in Jon Stewart's Daily Show (normally pro-Israel) precisely decrying the lack of any balance in the TV news media's coverage: JustASC's commentary on this, with the Stewart video
I would suggest that language like "anti-Israeli" - even in cases when arguably true - be substitued, in the spirit of civil discourse, with "pro-Palestinian". --Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, very telling observation Cerejota. Cryptonio (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Telling of what?--Cerejota (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Cerejota is right in the broader picture, but comparing Israel to the Nazis as the Scandavian "Left Party" person quoted above does is not pro Palestinian," is it? Hans Linde does not have an article in wiki and Ingalill Bjartén is probably only mentioned on this page. It is clearly an attempt at a Jewish/Israeli slur. Apparently only one "side" of this issue can appreciate this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the call for a boycott belongs in the international reactions article, not here. Untwirl (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a mere "call for a boycott" -- it is an anti-Israel "It's a racist apartheid state" /anti-Jewish "large numbers of the population suffered under the Nazis, ie Jews" -- slur. It deserves to be kicked off wiki altogether. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Erm, no. Avigdor Lieberman says all kinds of crap about the Palestinians, and we quote most of it. Slurs belong here, like Nigger, Kike, New antisemitism etc. NPOV means exposing facts, not hiding them, however uncomfortable, if they are reliably sourced. This is a quote from an elected official that belongs in wikipedia. But I am not sure at all if it belongs in this article... but somewhere else certainly. --Cerejota (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
do you really need to be told that wiki doesn't censor? you finding something an offensive "slur" isn't a reason to not report it. maybe you can find a quote from someone notable who agrees with you and post it for balance. Untwirl (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
anit-Israel? anti-Jewish? No the statement is anti-genocide and anti-oppression, you can't go and blame everyone who has legitimate criticisms on Israel as antisemitic. I guess Jon Stewart is antisemitic as well for not saying Israel should have the right to do what ever they want to whoever they want. Pathetic, this conflict isn't one sides fault, the blame lays on both sides, but right now it's not Palestinians who are killing hundreds of children, people will come out against it and they're not antisemitic for that — CHANDLER#10 — 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I am highly against using terms like "anti-Israeli" or "anti-American". They are highly opinionated classifications of statements which approach the kind of self regulating censorship the Soviet's were famous for. If for example I were to say that Israel needs to stop attacking the Palestinians I could mean this as 'advice for a good friend and ally' or 'a criticism of foreign & defence policy'. Likening Israel's actions to similar parallel's of isolation along ethnic grounds, resistance, reprisals & revenge such as South Africa's Apartheid & Hitler's Warsaw Ghetto could just be drawing examples. It certainly isn't the equivalent of calling people to arms to attack Israel just as saying the USA shouldn't invade Iraq (in 2003) isn't anti-American for exactly the same reasons. As for the people using terms such as 'anti-Israeli' and saying a statement like this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I say you're as bad as the Soviet's. You may as well be calling moderate reformers "Anti-Soviet" while their names are quietly removed from books and old newspaper articles.

An interesting point to note here though, given the nature of this comment is that Israel was in fact the principle international ally of Apartheid South Africa. They developed nuclear weapons programs together, trained together and operated on many of the same economic & social frameworks. These are 2 countries that not only have a long history of cooperation (until Apartheid came to an end) but they are 2 countries that had many similar solutions for similar problems. This is undisputed fact and readily admitted in Israel (asides from the nuclear program). So that part of the statement is not only uncontroversial but rather pointing out the obvious. The Warsaw Ghetto part of the statement on the other hand speaks more about the actual geographical and strategic nature of the segregation of Palestine & Israel. The coralling of Palestinians into segments of cities or country-side and the erecting of walls to keep them secured is the same as what occured in Warsaw, as are the uprisings against the well equipped military guards. The only controversial part of that statement is putting the Israeli's in the shoes of the military that later killed millions of them but that is a leap you would have to make through passionate opinion as this politician mentioned nothing of the later stages of the holocaust and only spoke of the ghetto.

Simply put, you're all being reactionaries and spewing highly opinionated bile into an encyclopedia either out of ignorance of the histories of South Africa, Israel, Gaza and Warsaw or because you're just on here to sabotage the article. Either way you should probably either reconsider contributing or reconsider what you are contributing.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

did you read the actual wording as presented here? “Israel is an apartheid state. I think Gaza is comparable to the Warsaw ghetto,” <snipped> “I’m surprised that Israel – where large numbers of the population suffered under the Nazis – can do the exact same things the Nazis did.” I fail to see how tagging Israel as an apartheid state is "not only uncontroversial but rather pointing out the obvious". As I recall, apartheid was largely a political system of wide exclusion from the democratic process. Like it or not, this is not at all obvious when talking about israel. I'm not sure it's even provable, certainly not from israeli official legal standpoint. As for the comparison to the gheto - "The coralling of Palestinians into segments of cities or country-side and the erecting of walls to keep them secured is the same as what occured in Warsaw" - That shows more about your complete lack of historical knowledge, then anything else. Most significant to current discussion - the natives arabs of the time by and large chose to leave their home and side with the losing side (during 1947-1949 conflict). They lost a war they started, now they play the victim card. there is no credible source that make that kind of assertion about jews in warsaw. More in the same vain. -- (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


-First off, the link you provided is to AIJAC, an Australian Jewish organization with a strong Israeli bias and with links to the American Jewish Committee, another extremely pro-Israeli group. Anything they say regarding the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is undeniably not NPOV. So your irrelevant point regarding Palestinians playing the victim card and Palestinians voluntarily just up and leaving their ancestral lands of their own free will is not only completely unrelated to the discussion and hotly disputed by many credible historians on both sides of the conflict, but it is as good as unsupported thanks to your source. Second, who exactly is showing the lack of knowledge of the situation on the ground here? Palestinians have been pushed into ghettos based around a definitive Israeli policy. In the West Bank, millions of people have been forced to live in the confines of very restrictive areas Israel maintains strict military rule all the surrounding West Bank lands around the Palestinian enclaves. The law is restrictive military law that does not take into account the rights of the Palestinians. The Israelis control there economy, their water and power, their freedom of movement, and their permission to work and build. In the West Bank and Gaza, these rules are in place over only the Arab Palestinian population, not the Jewish population (although there are no Jews in Gaza). Jewish settlers are given most rights to move in an build in the West Bank, and settlements are expanded at the expense of formerly Palestinian lands. Palestinians cannot move into and buy a home in a settlement as the communities are Jewish-only communities. The settlements are surrounded by "security" land and under military patrol. Palestinians are not allowed to take part in any law making process and no one represents their interests or rights in Israeli government. A wall is literally being built around their enclaves, complete with motion sensors and manned guard towers. Palestinians are required to carry special IDs with them at all times in case the Israeli army stops and questions them, and they are even required to have certain color lisence plates on their vehicles (in the West Bank the color is green, while the Israeli settlers get yellow plates) in order for the IDF to easily distinguish a Palestinian occupied vehicle from an Israeli one. I hate to do this, but it seems you don't understand what a ghetto or apartheid means, so I will show you the definitions. Ghetto: a section of a city, esp. a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social or economic restrictions, pressures, or hardships. Apartheid: any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc. The situation on the ground in the occupied territories completely and utterly conforms to the definitions of both apartheid and ghetto. Of course, I don't expect you to pay any attention to what I have just written, as I know your blind defense of Israel, even at the detriment to the Israeli side, will prevent you from arguing with any sort of logic.

  1. ^ [23]
  2. ^ Harel, Amos (December 27, 2008). "ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'". Ha’aretz. Retrieved December 27, 2008. 
  3. ^ a b "Israel braced for Hamas response". BBC. 2009-1-02.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b "Israel pounds Gaza for fourth day". London, UK: BBC. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2009-01-14. 
  5. ^ a b "Israel vows war on Hamas in Gaza". BBC. December 30, 2008. Archived from the original on December 30, 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008. 
  6. ^ a b "Factions refuse Abbas' call for unity meeting amid Gaza massacre". Turkish Weekly. Ma'an News Agency. 2008-12-30. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |archive-date= (help)
  7. ^ a b "Hamas slammed the silent and still Arab position on Gaza massacre" - "Israel airstrikes on Gaza kill at least 225". Khaleej Times. Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA). 2008-12-27. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |archive-date= (help)
  8. ^ a b "It's impossible to contain the Arab and Islamic world after the Gaza massacre" - "Hamas denies firing rockets from Lebanon". Special Broadcasting Service. Agence France-Presse. 2009-1-8. Archived from the original on 2009-1-11. Retrieved 2009-1-11.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date=, |archive-date= (help)
  9. ^ a b "الحرب علي غزة". 01-13-2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "gaza_war_arabic1"" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b "غارات متواصلة على قطاع غزة.. إرتفاع عدد شهداء الحرب لليوم السابع على التوالي إلى 437 بينهم70 طفل و45 إمرأة وإصابة أكثر من 2280". 01-02-2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "gaza_war_arabic2" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ Harel, Amos (December 27, 2008). "ANALYSIS / IAF strike on Gaza is Israel's version of 'shock and awe'". Ha’aretz. Retrieved December 27, 2008. 
  12. ^ "מלחמת עזה: הרצועה בותרה לשלושה חלקים". 2009-01-13. 
  13. ^ "בגלל המלחמה ההיא: עזה לבנון". 2009-01-13. 
  14. ^ [24]
  15. ^ [25]
  16. ^ [26]
  17. ^